Baroness Corston

The Right Honourable Jean Ann Corston, having been created Baroness Corston, of St George in the County and City of Bristol, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Campbell-Savours and the Lord Haworth.

Lord Goodlad

The Right Honourable Sir Alastair Robertson Goodlad, Knight, having been created Baron Goodlad, of Lincoln in the County of Lincolnshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Walker of Worcester and the Lord Jopling.

Royal Assent

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Appropriation (No. 3) Act 2005
	Finance (No. 2) Act 2005

Civil Service Draft Bill

Lord Sheldon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many responses have been received following the consultation document on their draft Civil Service Bill; and when they will complete their consideration of the responses.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government have received more than 50 responses to the consultation exercise. They will make a Statement when they have completed their consideration of the responses.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but will he accept that the question of a Civil Service Bill is not a new issue? Consultations have been going on for seven years, since the process began all that time ago. The latest consultation on the draft Bill, which produced only 50 replies, ended five months ago. So there have been five months to look at the results of the consultations and the 50 issues that must have been raised. What is a big issue is why political advisers should give instructions to civil servants, who have been acting in the name of all of us for the past 150 years.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is not the responsibility of special advisers to give instructions to civil servants. Their role is to work and to assist Ministers, Secretaries of State and parliamentary under-secretaries. The 50 responses were very detailed and we are giving very careful consideration to them. No doubt in full course we shall make our views on the fruits of those consultations known to your Lordships' House and another place.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, how many of the responses received argued in favour of an extension in the role and power of special advisers? Why did the Prime Minister, only last month and without informing Parliament, change the role of special advisers from advising to assisting Ministers, thereby allowing a non-elected political adviser to override a civil servant? Is that not just the kind of thing that we need a Civil Service Bill to prevent?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I dispute the interpretation that the noble Baroness puts on the change to the Order in Council. It simply changes the role from advising to assisting.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sorry, but assisting is not instructing. If that is what the noble Baroness thinks that it means, I believe that she is rather mistaken.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the procedure followed by the Government in making this amendment—

Lord Marsh: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is plenty of time to hear from both the Liberal Democrats and the Cross Benches.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the procedure which the Government followed in making this change—which he announced by an elision in his Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, about advice from special advisers—as the Government did by the Privy Council Order on 22 June, is a wholly inappropriate use of the prerogative power preventing any proper debate of it in Parliament or even a proper public announcement at the time? Why did the Government not act upon the prior expression of concern by the Committee on Standards in Public Life which deplored this hole in the corner way of proceeding and said that it would, as, indeed, today, it clearly has, give rise to further public concern and loss of trust?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am extremely puzzled by the noble Lord's approach to this matter. I have to tell the noble Lord and your Lordships' House that the change that has been recommended, and which is being made by Order in Council, was a direct result of a recommendation by the Public Administration Select Committee. That recommendation the Government welcomed.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister recall that Clause 5(8) of the Draft Civil Service Bill requires,
	"civil servants to carry out their duties . . . (c) with objectivity and impartiality"?
	Clause 5(9) states that,
	"the code need not require special advisers to carry out their duties with objectivity or political impartiality".
	Can he think of a better way of creating confusion and general dislike?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not think that there is the confusion which the noble Lord suggests. I believe that the role of special advisers in Whitehall is well understood. Their work has been widely welcomed in the past. Governments of all political persuasions have accepted the importance and value of special advisers. I believe that they do a valuable job across government. In fact, civil servants very much welcome their involvement.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—

Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, will the Minister clear up any remaining confusion and confirm in the light of his previous helpful reply that it is not within the power of special advisers at any time to give instructions to civil servants?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is not within the power of all bar one of the special advisers to give instructions. I am sure that that position is well understood by the noble Lord. Jonathan Powell has executive responsibilities. All other special advisers currently working for the Government advise and assist their Ministers.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords—

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, can we hear from the Liberal Democrats?

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister not accept that the problem is not so much the content of this order but the way in which it was made—that this important new change was made in utter secrecy and without any opportunity for previous discussion?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I dispute the notion that the order was made in secret. The amendment to the Civil Service Code in council appeared in the Gazette on 5 July. Sir Alistair Graham, the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, was fully aware of the Government's plan to publish a revised code of conduct for special advisers, and that incorporates the amendment that was proposed. As I made plain earlier, the recommendation was made to the Government by the Public Administration Select Committee.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, having been waved down with his usual courtesy by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I should now like to recover from the blow. Is the noble Lord aware that the comforting words that the Government use to themselves that special advisers are no problem are far from reassuring? We are concerned—and I hope that the Minister is aware of this—that the import on the present scale of special advisers into departments complete with their party political germs is a step, and a substantial step, in the direction of a single-party state.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord has gone a bit over the top on this one. Come on, my Lords, there are 77 or 78 special advisers across Whitehall, and there is a Civil Service of over 3,500 in the government departments at the centre of the way in which we govern our nation. The noble Lord needs to have a sense of proportion here.

Middle East Road Map

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have departed from the declared policy under the road map of halting the expansion of Maale Adumim and other settlements close to Jerusalem.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, we have by no means departed from our policy in support of the road map, including the need for Israel to freeze all settlement expansion and dismantle outposts. We have consistently made clear our opposition to continued settlement activity. We have also made clear that, while we support disengagement as an important first step, that does not alter the need for Israel to meet its road map commitments. We will continue to call on Israel to meet those commitments.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his statement of policy as far as it goes. I think he would agree that the expansion of Maale Adumim is cutting the West Bank into two parts and is completely undermining the concept of a viable, sustainable Palestine. Does he accept that the policy in Washington now is that that expansion is the price of disengagement from Gaza and no less? Therefore, is that not why the Government of Israel and the Government of the United States are ignoring our protests and those of the quartet?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I agree with the basic sentiment that expansion should stop. Continuing Israeli settlement activity does risk cutting the West Bank in two, with particular and major difficulties around east Jerusalem. We support disengagement as an important first step in the removal of the settlements from the occupied territory but, as I have said, that does not reduce in any way the requirement on Israel and the Israeli Government to meet their other commitments under phase one of the road map. It is of course the case that, were this to continue, a contiguous state would be close to impossible. The role of the United States in the peace process and the road-map process remains critical. During our EU presidency we will be working closely with them to ensure that they remain aligned with the objectives to which they have committed themselves as recently as the G8 conference.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while Israel is engaged in an extremely painful process of withdrawal from Gaza and large swathes of the West Bank, it deserves support and encouragement from the Government for what it is doing rather than criticism for what it is not yet doing? In any event, criticism is unlikely to be helpful to those Palestinians and Israelis who are engaged in trying to reach a viable solution.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, we are attempting as far as we are able to encourage all parties in the co-operation that has begun. It is a tender flower by any judgment. At the G8 conference, we got the commitment of the G8 nations to a £3 billion per annum investment in the development of Gaza. There are obligations on both sides. On the Palestinian side, road map commitments were entered into in relation to the Cairo declaration, the Sharm al-Sheikh summit on 8 February and the London meeting on 1 March. All parties have an equal obligation to try to ensure that the encouragement that they have had and the resources that they will now get make a fundamental difference.

Lord Steinberg: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Mr Sharon and the Israeli Government should be congratulated on their determination and tenacity in the withdrawal from Gaza and certain territories? I say this more in sorrow than in anger, but continued Palestinian terrorism prevents substantive talks on the road map. Does the Minister agree that there should be an absolute end to terrorism?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, of course there should be an absolute end to terrorism. I cannot believe that a single Member of your Lordships' House would take a different view. A recurrence of violence in the region is no help in securing that outcome. Our position is straightforward. The withdrawal from Gaza is an absolutely invaluable step in the process, but it must not and cannot be the only step; we must encourage others to carry on and go forward. I am encouraged by the extent to which the leaders of the two communities are now co-operating in difficult circumstances to achieve that goal.

Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government make use of our presidency of the EU to make clear that our long-term generous trade agreements with Israel depend on continued steady progress on the road map towards a two-state solution; and that by two states we mean two equal sovereign states, not one with a semi-autonomous neighbour divided into Bantustans by settlements and the misrouting of the security wall?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I hope that I have made clear to the House the Government's position on the settlements and the consequences around east Jerusalem. At present, there is no good argument for using our presidency to threaten rather than assist. Real progress is being made at the moment. It is very difficult. If anyone in this House had the magic bullet, I have no doubt that they would have described it to your Lordships already. We are nurturing an extremely difficult moment, and that is best done with the money as well as the encouragement. We will use the presidency fully to ensure that that happens.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords—

Baroness Tonge: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Cross Benches.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I again pay tribute to the political courage of Prime Minister Sharon in trying to achieve the withdrawal of Israeli settlers from Gaza. Nevertheless, does the Minister agree that the current difficulties of ensuring that withdrawal mean that the prospects of a substantial withdrawal of settlers from the West Bank—not freezing their number but withdrawing them—which will be required if there is to be a viable and contiguous Palestinian state, now seem very remote? Does not the Minister agree that the best prospect for winning the so-called war on terror would be a really concentrated, balanced attempt by the quartet, including Her Majesty's Government, to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wright. The aim must be to ensure that the whole road-map process is driven forward. It is fundamental to the road map that a contiguous and viable state exists for the Palestinian people. We should use our efforts to try to secure that.
	However, as a stepping stone in the process, I ask the House to understand that at present steps that have not been seen for a long time are being made on the parts of the leaders of both communities. It is our hope that that will build a greater level of confidence for the steps that will then still be needed. That is why every encouragement is required at the moment for the steps to which people are committed. I hope that, by the time we come back after the Summer Recess, we will have seen a successful achievement of the first parts of that, and that it leads to a further engagement with the road map as a whole.

Manufacturing Employment

Lord Wade of Chorlton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How the number of jobs in the United Kingdom manufacturing sector has changed since 1997.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, according to the Office for National Statistics, manufacturing employee jobs declined by around 947,000 between April 1997 and May 2005. However, UK employment levels remain excellent and, over the same period, business services employment increased by 772,000, for example. Over the same period, there were falls of 3 million in manufacturing employment in both the US and Japan. Those figures emphasise the need for the UK manufacturing industry to innovate constantly, and to move into higher value-added sectors, if we are to compete against emerging economies such as China and India.

Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but he is no doubt aware that there is considerable concern about the fall in our manufacturing capacity in the UK. That is particularly so in the north-west of England, where our manufacturing GDP is down to 20 per cent, although that is still the highest figure of all regions. A recent report—the business forecast for the north-west of England—indicated that, from 2000 to 2008, we would lose 97,000 manufacturing jobs but gain 127,000 jobs in the public sector. That seems to be a transfer of wealth-creating people to people who will be a cost on all of us. I would be grateful for the Government's views on those changes. At what level do we reduce our GDP to such a point that manufacturing becomes an issue for the UK economy?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is obviously a concern that there is a fall in manufacturing, because of the impact on individual lives. However, long term the concern has to be whether we are moving, in terms of employment, into knowledge-intensive manufacturing and services. If we move into high value-added manufacturing and service jobs, we will be able to compete across the world.
	So far as public sector employment is concerned, over the period about which we are talking—1997 to 2004—on a national basis the private sector increased by 1.2 million, and the public sector by 570,000. The majority of jobs still come very much in the private sector, and the Government make no apology for employing unprecedented numbers of people to deliver front-line public services in areas such as education, health and criminal justice.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, although I hear what my noble friend has to say and acknowledge the huge amount of restructuring that is taking place in what could be termed the heavy industries such as steel and shipbuilding, does he not agree that it is vital that those industries thrive and survive, particularly given the current world economic climate? Does he also agree that those who say that we now live in a non-industrial or post-industrial society are blatantly wrong?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have to accept that we live in a world in which the division of labour is being redrawn. In 1980, less than a tenth of manufacturing exports came from developing countries. Today that figure is 30 per cent. In 20 years, the figure will probably be 50 per cent. We must recognise that our labour-intensive manufacturing is likely to go to the developing world. We have to achieve a move into knowledge-intensive manufacturing and service. Both manufacturing and service are important, because we need to maintain a strong manufacturing sector in this country.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, are the Government not being rather complacent about this growing imbalance in our economy? What are they doing to promote manufacturing of the higher value kind that the noble Lord described and what success have their measures achieved?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are doing a great deal to help manufacturing industry move up the value added chain. The range of measures includes increasing the science budget, increasing the level of knowledge transfer from universities to industry, the R&D tax credits, the technology strategy and the highly successful Manufacturing Advisory Service. All of those are elements of our strategy to help manufacturing to move up into high value added sectors.

Lord Newby: My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the paradox of falling employment in manufacturing and persistent, chronic skill shortages in many parts of the manufacturing sector. Does he agree that one of the key ways of tackling that would be achieved by increasing the number of apprentices? What action do the Government intend to take on the recommendation of last week's Industry Task Force report on apprenticeships?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I totally agree. We have already increased the number of apprenticeships from some 75,000 to 275,000, if my memory is correct. I believe that there are plans to increase that figure to 300,000. Such an increase in skill levels is a key factor of productivity in manufacturing.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the number of people who have been made redundant in manufacturing industries as a result of the decline are often highly-skilled people. What steps are the Government taking to reintegrate those skilled people into the workforce?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, yes. In fact, there are, at present, many unfilled vacancies in manufacturing—over some 50,000. When significant redundancies take place, the rapid response service works quickly to try to get people into new jobs, so that they do not become disconnected from the labour market.

Biofuels: EU Targets

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the decision of the European Commission to start infraction proceedings following the United Kingdom's failure to meet agreed European Union biofuel targets.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we are confident that we have implemented the directive properly and in full. We will respond to the European Commission shortly with a robust justification of our 2005 target.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, in the circumstances, is not the Government's and the Prime Minister's commitment to renewable sources of energy and combating climate change just empty rhetoric? Will the Minister confirm that the EC infraction proceedings and the recommendation of the report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of 2003 demonstrate only that the Government have yet—I repeat, yet—to devise an over-arching biofuel strategy, let alone establishing responsibility for this area of policy?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness underestimates the progress that we have made. We have increased the sale of these fuels by five times since last year and we expect to hit our target of 0.3 per cent—we communicated that to the Commission. She will recognise that member states will move at different paces in relation to this directive. That is why it is not mandatory. Of course, some states have targets of nil progress, due to the base from which they start. Britain starts from a low base, but we are making satisfactory progress and we will meet our target.

Lord Carter: My Lords, as my noble friend said, our report to the European Commission proudly announced a "realistic target" of 0.3 per cent of fuel sales by the end of 2005. Is he aware that that is one-seventh of the EU-indicated target of 2 per cent for 2005? How can the Government expect to be taken seriously on the climate change initiative when they are prepared to accept such a derisory target?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the target was arrived at after full consultation across all interests. As I have indicated, it was recognised that there is a massive difference between a country such as Germany, which has been producing biofuels for more than 30 years, and Britain, which is starting from a very low base. I understand my noble friend's concern about progress. It is important that we hit the target that we have set. We shall respond to the commission, make it clear that we intend to do so and set a more ambitious target for 2010, which is also our obligation. I assure the House that we are on target for the position that we set forward two years ago and we are making progress in this area in the way in which I have indicated.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the innovative project by Somerset County Council, Ford Cars and Wessex Grain to get more than 80 per cent biofuel into production? Can he assure me that the distribution network is being talked about by his department because distribution of that grade of fuel is one of the major challenges?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness has lighted upon an important point. We are seeking to make progress in that respect. We welcome all developments and want to encourage them. That is why we have incentives to encourage the development of bioethanol fuels. It is not an easy target to hit. We set ourselves a proper, realistic target because of the factors to which the noble Baroness has drawn attention. We are seeking to overcome the barriers that restrict us from future progress.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, I am mystified by that answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. More than a year ago, this House passed the renewable fuel transport obligations legislation, which could have meant that we could easily meet our biofuel targets. I simply fail to understand why nothing has been done in the past 13 months. Can the Minister explain why?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, far from nothing being done, we have seen a five-fold increase in the production and consumption of these fuels in the past year. A 20p rebate on the tax on the fuels is in place as an incentive. None of us can expect Britain to reach the standard of some European countries overnight. It is clear that we have considerable progress to make. A substantial number of other European states are in exactly the same position as us. The difference is that Britain has got a realistic target and will be hitting it.

Baroness Ludford: My Lords, on another "bio-" issue with a European angle, the Minister will be aware that the Commission is taking infringement proceedings against the UK for failing to have proper collection and treatment facilities for raw sewage discharges. Will the Government seek to avoid infringement proceedings for the massive raw sewage discharges into the Thames, which breach the urban waste water directive?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is an extremely important question on which, sadly, I am utterly inadequately briefed, simply because the only connecting element seems to be that its source is a European directive, but a different one. I shall reply to the noble Baroness when she tables a Question on that directive.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, following on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and accepting the difficulties the Minister outlined and that the EU directive is only indicative on targets, there still remains the question of when the Government are going to trigger the target inserted in the Energy Act by this House with all-party support, including my support from the Front Bench. When will we take the decision to trigger the obligation under that legislation, without which no ambitious target for 2010 can be reached?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend speaks with great authority. I recall sitting at his feet during the passage of the Energy Act. He is right that an amendment made to that Bill is of great importance on this matter. It is on the basis of that amendment that we are producing a fresh target for 2010. It is the basis of our robust reply to the European Commission, to which I alluded in my earlier Answer, about our progress on this matter. My noble friend will recognise that the Government intend to deliver against an enhanced target.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I should like to say something about today's business. With the leave of the House there will be a Statement very shortly on developments since the terrorist attack. That will be repeated by my noble friend Lady Scotland.
	So far as concerns the rest of today's business, the House will appreciate and understand that, because of the obvious and agreed reasons we adjourned early on Monday, there is some business which we had intended to do on Monday, which now will be done today. There is also the Statement and the large number of speakers who put down their names first for the Commons Bill and then for the two Bills on smokers.
	It will be difficult for us to meet our intended rising time of ten o'clock. But, as the House knows, we have to meet our rising time of eleven o'clock because we begin early tomorrow. I simply say to the House that if we are to do that comfortably the Back-Bench contributions on the Commons Bill will need to be around six minutes and the Back-Bench contributions on the smoking Bills, likewise, will have to be around six minutes. If we are able to stick to that we shall be able to complete in reasonable time.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to public business be amended as follows:
	Standing Order 65 (Sessional Committees)
	After "Hybrid Instruments Committee" insert "Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee".—(Lord Grocott.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merits of Statutory Instruments

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the orders of reference of the Select Committee be amended to read as follows:
	"(1) The Committee shall, subject to the exceptions in paragraph (2), consider—
	(a) every instrument (whether or not a statutory instrument), or draft of an instrument, which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be, or might have been, taken in either House of Parliament under an Act of Parliament;
	(b) every proposal which is in the form of a draft of such an instrument and is laid before each House of Parliament under an Act of Parliament,
	with a view to determining whether or not the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (3).
	(2) The exceptions are—
	(a) Orders in Council, and draft Orders in Council, under paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000;
	(b) remedial orders, and draft remedial orders, under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998;
	(c) draft orders (including draft subordinate provisions orders) under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, subordinate provisions orders under that Act and proposals in the form of a draft order under that Act;
	(d) Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made, and drafts of instruments to be made, under them.
	(3) The grounds on which an instrument, draft or proposal may be drawn to the special attention of the House are—
	(a) that it is politically or legally important or gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House;
	(b) that it may be inappropriate in view of changed circumstances since the enactment of the parent Act;
	(c) that it may inappropriately implement European Union legislation;
	(d) that it may imperfectly achieve its policy objectives.
	(4) The Committee shall also consider such other general matters relating to the effective scrutiny of the merits of statutory instruments and arising from the performance of its functions under paragraphs (1) to (3) as the Committee considers appropriate, except matters within the orders of reference of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments."—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders (Private Business)

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Private Business be amended as follows:
	Standing Order 150B
	Leave out Standing Order 150B and insert—
	"150B Revival of bills
	(1) Paragraphs (2) and (3) apply in any case where—
	(a) this House resolves that the promoters of a bill which—
	(i) originated in this House in an earlier session of this Parliament or in the last Parliament; and
	(ii) had not received the Royal Assent,
	should have leave to proceed with the bill in the current session; and
	(b) the House of Commons concur with the resolution, or have previously passed a resolution to the like effect as the resolution of this House.
	(2) The petition for the bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with.
	(3) The bill shall be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than the fifth day on which the House sits after the passing of the resolution of this House, or (as applicable) the concurrence of the House of Commons, and a declaration, signed by the agent, shall be annexed to the bill stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill at the last stage of the proceedings on it in this House in the last Parliament or, as the case may be, the bill passed by this House.
	(4) Paragraph (5) applies in any case where—
	(a) this House resolves that the promoters of a bill which—
	(i) originated in the House of Commons in an earlier session of this Parliament or in the last Parliament; and
	(ii) had not received the Royal Assent,
	should have leave to proceed with the bill in the current session; and
	(b) the House of Commons subsequently pass a resolution to the like effect as the resolution of this House.
	(5) If the bill is brought from the House of Commons in the current session, the agent for the bill shall deposit in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments a declaration, signed by the agent, stating that the bill is the same in every respect as the bill which was brought from the Commons in the last session.
	(6) The following provisions of this Order apply in both of those cases.
	(7) The proceedings on the bill in the current session shall be pro forma in regard to every stage through which it passed in the last Parliament or, as the case may be, the last session, and no further fees shall be charged to those stages.
	(8) If there is any petition outstanding—
	(a) any such petition which stood referred to a select committee on the bill in the last Parliament or, as the case may be, the last session shall stand referred to a select committee on the bill in the current session;
	(b) any minutes of evidence taken before a select committee on the bill in the last Parliament or, as the case may be, the last session shall stand referred to a select committee on the bill in the current session;
	(c) no petitioners shall be heard before any select committee on the bill in the current session unless their petition has been presented within the time stipulated for the deposit of petitions in the last Parliament or, as the case may be, the last session or deposited pursuant to Standing Order 109(b);
	(d) Standing Order 110 shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 109 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted.
	(9) In this Order "current session" means the session of Parliament in which the resolution of this House is passed and "the last Parliament" and "the last session" shall be construed accordingly."—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) (No. 2) Order 2005

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26 May be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

London: Terrorist Attacks

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to bring the House up to date with developments since my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made his Statement to the House on Monday 11 July.
	"A total of 56 people are now known to have died as a result of the explosions. The identities of all of these have now been formally confirmed through the relevant procedures. Support and advice continues to be given to the families affected as requested, in what remain very difficult and traumatic circumstances.
	"It is possible that this total may rise as the police investigation of the very difficult scenes continues. Twenty-seven people remain in hospital undergoing treatment at present.
	"Until this week all four explosion sites have remained crime scenes—at this point three still are. As the police have made clear, it is vital to their work that no clues or evidence are overlooked or destroyed. However, Transport for London is optimistic that Aldgate station, which has been handed back to London Underground by the police, may be returned to service by next Monday, 25 July. The train has now been removed from the Edgware Road site, although police remain at the scene. Subject to completion of the forensic work and a fuller inspection of the tracks at Edgware Road, it is hoped that a full Circle Line service may be restored in a couple of weeks. It is not possible at present to say how long restoration of the Russell Square site may take. Roads around Upper Woburn Place remain closed at present pending conclusion of the police forensic investigation of the site.
	"There has been a great deal of speculation about the ongoing investigation. The police will continue to give regular updates but I do not intend to make detailed comments since in my opinion to do so could be damaging and might impede any resulting prosecutions.
	"However, the House will be aware that there has been rapid progress on identifying productive lines of inquiry. A very large volume of information, including witness statements, CCTV footage, evidence from the scenes and recovered from searched addresses, is already being analysed. The police and Security Service are to be congratulated for their work in this complex and fast-moving investigation. We are all determined to take whatever steps are needed to identify, track down and bring to justice all those involved in instigating, planning and supporting these terrible crimes.
	"I now turn to the forthcoming counter-terrorism legislation. As the House will know, I wrote to the right honourable Member for Haltemprice and Howden and the honourable Member for Winchester on Friday, setting out our initial proposals for inclusion in the Bill. Copies of my letter were placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
	"On Monday, I met the right honourable and honourable gentlemen to discuss this matter, and I should like to place on record my appreciation of the helpful and constructive tone which they both adopted.
	"My letter set out the main items that the Government believe should be included in the Counter Terrorism Bill. I should stress that those proposals were drawn up before 7 July, and that, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister indicated in his Statement last week, we are discussing with the police and intelligence agencies whether there might be further powers that they need in the light of those events and the subsequent investigation.
	"The heart of the Bill is the creation of three new offences. The first of these criminalises acts preparatory to terrorism in order to ensure that early intervention does not mean that those responsible, who may be planning very serious terrorist crimes, should escape prosecution. The new offence will capture those planning serious acts of terrorism.
	"The second proposed new offence focuses upon indirect incitement to terrorism. Direct incitement to commit acts of violence is already a criminal offence. This proposal targets those who, while not directly inciting, glorify and condone terrorist acts knowing full well that the effect on their listeners will be to encourage them to turn to terrorism. So, indirect incitement, where it is done with the intention of inciting others to commit acts of terrorism—an important qualification—will become a criminal offence.
	"Thirdly, the Bill will deal with the giving and receiving of terrorist training. Our existing law already criminalises much activity that could fall within that description, but we want to close the gaps to make sure that anyone who gives or receives training in terrorist techniques is covered.
	"Legislating for those two offences will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, which I very much welcome.
	"The Bill will also make a number of amendments to existing legislation, which are set out in the letter that I have placed in the Library of the House.
	"I am very pleased to say that, when we met on Monday, the right honourable and honourable gentlemen indicated that they were, in principle, prepared to support all those measures. Of course, they will want to see, and contribute to, the detail as it emerges, and I have undertaken to keep them informed of developments during the summer. I am very grateful to them for their support and I very much hope that we can continue to proceed by means of consensus.
	"In that spirit, both indicated to me on Monday that they were in favour of the Government de-coupling this legislation from the further parliamentary consideration of control orders, to which I committed during the passage of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, and bringing it forward for introduction in October. They further indicated to me that they were in favour of proceeding straight to introduction, without pre-legislative scrutiny, provided that they could have early sight of the draft legislation and that the normal parliamentary procedures and timetable were followed in both Houses.
	"On this basis we are proposing to bring forward the legislation as soon as practicable when the House returns. We propose to return to the issue of control orders in the spring after we have the report from the independent reviewer, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
	"The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is not only the reviewer of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, he performs a similar function in respect of the Terrorism Act 2000. He published his most recent report on the operation of the Act on 26 May. I am very grateful to him for a typically thorough and thoughtful report. Of course, his report was published before the terrible events of 7 July but he has since confirmed that his overall conclusions remain.
	"I have today published the Government's response to his report and placed copies in the Library. We have given effect to several of his recommendations and are giving active consideration to others.
	"In the days and weeks since 7 July, many have raised concerns about extremists who seek to come to this country and foment terrorism or provoke others to commit terrorist acts. I have reviewed the Government's powers to exclude such people.
	"The Home Secretary has powers to exclude an individual on the grounds that his or her presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public interest. There is no statutory right of appeal against the exclusion decision, but, of course, it can be challenged through judicial review. In addition, immigration and entry clearance officers have similar powers. Any 'exclusion' by them would generate a right of appeal. This power is currently informed by the operation of a 'warnings index' of named individuals.
	"I have concluded that these powers need to be applied more widely and systematically, both to people before they come to the United Kingdom and when they are here.
	"In recent decades, for all Home Secretaries, the criteria for exercise of these powers have generally been grounds of national security, public order or risk to the United Kingdom's good relations with a third country. In going beyond these grounds we rightly need to tread very carefully indeed in areas which relate to free speech. But in the circumstances we now face, I have decided that it is right to broaden the use of these powers to deal with those who foment terrorism or seek to provoke others to terrorist acts.
	"To this end, I intend to draw up a list of unacceptable behaviours which would fall within this—for example, preaching, running websites or writing articles which are intended to foment or provoke terrorism. The list will be indicative rather than exhaustive. We will consult on the list because it is important that we work with the community on this. Where there are grounds for considering that a person has been engaged in such activities, or will do so in the UK, exclusion will be considered.
	"I have asked my officials, together with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the intelligence agencies, to establish a full database of individuals around the world who have demonstrated the relevant behaviours. This database will be available to entry clearance and immigration officers and will be added to the current 'warnings index'. I should make it clear that entry on this index does not itself necessarily mean exclusion, but in all cases it will trigger the possibility of a decision to exclude by Ministers.
	"In addition to using this list to ensure that these 'non-conducive' powers are applied more widely and systematically at the point of entry, the specified unacceptable behaviours will not be permitted for individuals who have leave to enter or remain in this country. This arises in various categories, as follows: for those here temporarily—for example, as visitors, students or workers, or their dependants—and for those with indefinite leave to remain, any breach will lead to termination of their leave or deportation; for asylum seekers, we will as a general rule look to detain them and fast track their claims in these cases; for refugees, we will consider whether the behaviours described fall within one of the categories for exclusion from protection under the Refugee Convention 1951; we have already made clear in the changes announced on refugee status earlier this week that any breach by a refugee of the categories for exclusion will trigger an immediate review of their status; we are already consulting on changes to the conditions for leave to enter and remain as ministers of religion. We will consider with the faith communities whether further measures are needed.
	"I am also urgently seeking agreement with European Union and other countries on a mutual exchange of information on exclusion decisions. The power of exclusion is necessarily targeted at those outside the United Kingdom. When people already in the UK engage in the kind of behaviour I have identified, it may well be appropriate to deport them under statutory powers. I will ensure that a consistent stance is taken in relation to both deportations and exclusions. In the past, there have been some successful challenges to proposed deportations under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. For this reason we have actively been seeking memoranda of understanding with a number of governments to address these legal concerns.
	"I am pleased to announce today that the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan have reached agreement in principle on the provisions of such a memorandum of understanding regulating the arrangements by which assurances regarding the treatment of particular individuals can be sought prior to their deportation. The formal signing of the memorandum of understanding will be arranged shortly, and a copy of the text will be placed in the Libraries of the Houses of Parliament once the signing ceremony has taken place.
	"I do not in general intend to comment on the position of particular individuals in these matters. However, in the light of recent public comments, the House may be interested to know that I understand that Sheikh Yusuf Al Qaradawi is not now planning to visit the United Kingdom in the near future. If he were to seek to do so, I will of course have to consider whether his presence will be conducive to the public good. I will follow the approach I have set out today in the case of Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed and other individuals whose names are in the public domain.
	"I want to conclude by applauding the efforts which the leaders of the Muslim communities are now making to improve their capacity to fight extremism and protect young people. At a series of meetings with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, myself and others, positive proposals are emerging to strengthen our capacity to fight the destructive and nihilist philosophy of those who promoted the London bombings.
	"As I hope I have demonstrated, there is unity of purpose. The Government want to work with other parties to ensure that we have the most effective anti-terrorism legislation on our statute book. Similarly, we want to work with the Muslim community to isolate and weaken dangerous extremists. I am grateful to all those engaged in this important work, which I hope will command the support of Parliament".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made a short while ago in another place by her right honourable friend the Home Secretary. As ever, our thoughts go first to those who were killed or injured on 7 July and to their families—innocent lives touched by evil actions.
	I want to put on the record our thanks to the Government for bringing the House up to date today and for the Home Secretary's courtesy in keeping opposition parties informed about developments privately over the past two weeks. During that time, Britain has shown that it can and will come together to fight this new breed of terrorism that stalks our land. That terrorism is extraordinarily calculating. The Kings Cross atrocity, with its calculated trail of evidence deliberately leading back to the cities of northern England, was designed to demoralise and divide our communities and to set Muslim and non-Muslim citizens against one another.
	It is to this country's enormous credit that that, in large part, has not been allowed to happen. British people of all religions and none have stood together in the face of this appalling evil. As a result, almost two weeks from that terrible Thursday morning in London, the terrorists and all those who harbour and support them know that they have simply not won.
	Our united response to the terrorists stems from three separate sources. First, there are the police and the security services, to whom I pay great tribute. They have come under great scrutiny since 7 July. We must never forget that when a terrorist gets through, it is a very public matter; but when that terrorist is thwarted, it very often remains secret. The services have acted with tremendous speed to identify those responsible and continue to display the utmost professionalism in tracking down those behind them. In doing so, some have had to work in hideously unpleasant conditions.
	The second source is the Government and Parliament. We pay tribute to the calm and measured way in which the Government have conducted themselves over the past two weeks. They have been quick to come forward with effective proposals to update our anti-terrorism laws, which are welcome. We commend the Home Secretary for accepting our proposals to separate consideration of control orders from the new legislation and for his commitment, given today, that normal parliamentary procedures and timetables will be followed in both Houses.
	The first new offence he proposes—acts preparatory to terrorism—is something that we have proposed for some time. For the benefit of the House, can the Minister clarify the difference between this and the alternative proposals of criminalising "conspiracy" or "attempting" to commit terrorist acts?
	I also welcome the new law on the indirect incitement of terrorism. It is, indeed, much better focused than the alternative proposals that have been suggested in the past.
	Much of the effectiveness of this new law depends on the detail of the drafting. Will the Home Secretary ensure that early drafts are available for both Houses, as soon as possible in September, so that informed and interested parties, both within and outwith Parliament—I am thinking, in particular, of the Bar and the Law Society—can pass their judgments on the proposals and help constructively to improve the law?
	Perhaps I may take this opportunity to remind the Minister that we on these Benches continue to believe that allowing the use of phone-tapping evidence in court could help even further.
	Will the Government look again at the security of Britain's ports? Can the Minister tell the House what actions the Government are taking to ensure that all British ports have the proper establishment levels of Special Branch officers and other appropriate personnel?
	Finally, the attacks demand an active response from the community itself, particularly from prominent members of the Muslim community in Britain. They have already shown great leadership over the past two weeks, and Muslims in communities across our country have responded quickly and openly to requests for help from the security services and the police. The Home Secretary and my right honourable friend David Davis met senior members of all faiths and community groups this morning and they fully understand that the best way to fight this home-grown terrorism is by rooting it out at its source. They have a clear responsibility to act, but there are several things that the Government can do to help.
	We strongly welcome the Home Secretary's announcement today about strengthening his powers of exclusion. Will the Government consider going further by looking at training more Imams here in Britain so that they are comfortable with the society in which they preach? We also hope that the Government will look at what they can do to deal with the disaffected young people who travel to madrassahs in the region of Pakistan where schooling in terrorism seems to be rife. Action on this issue would be extremely welcome.
	Many words have been expended over the past two weeks as people from all areas of British society and beyond have united in their condemnation of the attacks. As time goes on, those words will increasingly turn into demands for action. With the proposals set out by the Government this week, they have shown themselves ready to meet that demand. I am happy to say that we continue to stand foursquare in readiness with them.
	Ultimately, tackling terrorism in Britain will be a combined effort with politicians, the police, the security services and the whole community working together. That is what we have seen over the past two weeks and that is why we have been able to make progress in identifying those who committed the atrocity, tracking those who supported them and learning lessons to improve our defences in the future.
	If, in the days ahead, we are able to carry that forward, our society and our country really will have come out of this ordeal stronger. That, I think, must be the finest tribute we can all pay to those who were killed or injured on our streets nearly two weeks ago.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I ask her to convey our thanks to the Home Secretary for the constructive approach that he has taken on this issue and for the meeting that he arranged with my honourable friend in the other place, Mark Oaten. My noble friends Lord McNally and Lady Williams are grateful to the Leader of the House for everything that happened yesterday relating to this matter.
	I am glad that there will not be a knee-jerk reaction to the problems that we face. Of course, there should be an appropriate and a proportionate response and we are satisfied that that is so in the proposals that have been outlined. To do otherwise would simply mean handing victory to the terrorists. I convey the sympathy and condolences of those on these Benches to those who have suffered tragedies and we thank the police and the emergency services for the way in which they acted.
	The Minister knows that we offer our support for the three measures outlined, as we believe that they will make a contribution towards security in this country. That is of paramount importance. The measures on indirect incitement to terrorism will be very difficult to define. I welcome the Home Secretary's commitment to work with all parties in drafting that. I hope that that will include those on the Front Benches in your Lordships' House. Does the Minister agree that the key to this law will be to produce wording that can stand up in court, but that is not so wide in scope that it could be misused?
	The Home Secretary knows that we still have differences about control orders and we hope that those can be fully debated in the spring. It would be helpful to know how those orders are working at present. Can the Minister tell the House when she will next report on the number of control orders that have been issued? Does she agree that that cannot wait until Parliament returns in mid-October?
	The Home Secretary has said that the intelligence services have the resources that they require, but he will know that it is the local police who are in the front line, and recent events have increased their workload. Is he satisfied that the Metropolitan Police and local police forces covering our major cities have the resources that they need? I understand that the Met has already been promised more money, but what about the others?
	Border security has never been more important. Does the Home Secretary now see a case for creating a national border force to replace the current arrangements that leave immigration, Customs and Excise and local police sharing this important task?
	At his meeting in Brussels, the Home Secretary began the process of discussing changes to the rules about gaining data from phones and the Internet. What involvement does he see for Parliament in that process?
	Finally, it is our firm view that good legislation also needs good debate and scrutiny. The Liberal Democrats will play their part in that process and we shall do so in the belief that all parties should work together on these measures to send the terrorists the strongest possible signal that the parties are committed to democracy and are determined to join together to defeat them. The terrorists must remember that not only the Government, but all the political parties and the citizens of the United Kingdom, are united in their determination to wipe out terrorism from our soil.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord very warmly for their very generous words of support and for the compliments which they have rightly paid my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I thank them equally for the wonderful, robust stance which has been adopted by leaders of both opposition parties. I endorse everything the noble Baroness and the noble Lord said. In a time of adversity, those who seek to terrorise us will never divide us. We stand resolute together to face them. I of course associate myself with the sympathy that has been expressed to those who have been so tragically bereaved and dreadfully injured by the terrorist acts.
	On the issue of "acts preparatory", there are similarities, but the noble Baroness will know that we have tried very carefully together to craft something which will capture the essence of the difficulty with which we are faced. The noble Baroness will know that there are those who are in the act of preparing for terrorist activities, and we do not wish them to be able to escape.
	In relation to definitions, I assure the House that as soon as drafts are ready it is our intention to share them, clause by clause if necessary, with noble Lords on both Opposition Benches so that the earliest possible access can be given for consideration. Priority will probably have to be given to that, but we will do all we can to share the thinking as early as appears to be appropriate.
	The noble Baroness will know that we intend to extend the terrorism stop-and-search powers to cover bays and estuaries. Our current legislation does not allow us to do that and we are looking to strengthen those powers. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is due to meet the head of port security and will address what may be necessary for further support, working with port operations to improve the facilities that are being provided by Special Branch.
	I join the noble Baroness in commending the work that has been done by the Muslim communities. I assure her that we will concentrate on the issues she has identified, particularly in relation to those who may be disaffected and young, and therefore impressionable, in our communities.
	The noble Baroness knows that intercept issues continue to be subject to consideration. That will remain the position.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about indirect incitement. I agree that definition will be of real importance. We have to get this right—it has to be capable of being intelligible to our courts and something we can use effectively to stop those who wish to terrorise us. I do not underestimate the difficulty we face, but I express again my gratitude that in looking at these complex and difficult issues we will seek, as much as possible, consensus on them.
	The noble Lord also asked what we intend to do in relation to reporting on control orders, bearing in mind that we are due to have a report on, I think, 11 September, when we will not be sitting. We hope that we will be able to put down a Question, which I am advised could be answered in the vacation and will give us an opportunity to take the matter further as soon as we come back. We hope that that will meet the needs of the situation. We will put the Question down before we rise, and it can be answered while we are away. We understand from Hansard that that is an acceptable method to adopt.
	I close by thanking the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for continuing what the leaders of both parties have done in expressing their solidarity with the Government but also with the people of this country.

Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I add my prayers for those who perished two weeks ago. I welcome the measured way in which the Home Secretary has approached the crisis. I attended the meeting with the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, and there was a tremendous consensus about condemning suicide bombings everywhere. There was total clarity that, if suicide bombing is unacceptable and un-Islamic in this country, it is so everywhere in the world. As someone who has been interested in erasing website materials that are grossly unsuitable for anyone to look at, I welcome the Home Secretary's proposals.
	Does my noble friend agree that we must put women at the forefront of every aspect of the work that is now to be undertaken by the Government? Will she accept that the work of the Mothers Against Guns campaign can be a lesson for those mothers among us who want to call for a non-violent means of engaging with world opinion?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady Uddin and assure her that we wish to engage with all those who will join us to defeat this terrible scourge. The voices of Mothers Against Violence and Mothers Against Guns are very powerful. We will seek to encourage as much support for such activities as we can, because there is no person in this country whose support we do not need.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, will the Minister assure us that the Government were given the crucial information at the earliest possible moment, at each of the four bomb sites, that the explosions were not associated with chemical, bacteriological or radioactive material, which could be used by a terrorist in this sort of attack?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I assure noble Lords that the Government were informed of all necessary material. We have been keeping in closest contact with the security and other services that were involved in scrutinising the outcome of those terrorist activities, and all necessary information has been given to us.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I add my sense of the support and prayers of many, many Churches and Church people for those who suffered in this crime. Will the Minister give some reassurance about the references to preaching and ministers of religion in the Statement? These things can be quite sensitive. I do not condone in any way, of course, the use of preaching as a cover for incitement to violence, but does the Minister agree that determining the content, meaning and understanding of preaching in a different faith from one's own can be a sensitive and difficult matter? It would be unfortunate if there arose some general view without sensitive examination that, for example, imams from the Indian sub-continent were particularly prone to engage in preaching that was unacceptable, particularly in view of the very good record that imams have had in fostering co-operation in the prison chaplaincy service, for example.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reassure the right reverend Prelate on that point. That is why, in the Statement, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made it plain that he intends to consult the faith communities about these issues. We understand the sensitivity that is required in this area, but I endorse everything that my noble friend Lady Uddin said about how these issues need to be addressed. It is that coming together that may well save this country from any lack of moderation.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I have brief questions on each of the three new proposed offences. First, I welcome most strongly the new offence of preparing to commit an act of terrorism. That was first recommended many years ago by a committee under Lord Gardner, when he was Lord Chancellor. It was recommended again in my report in 1995, and when the 2000 Act was going through I tried to introduce an offence of that nature, which was resisted at the time by the Government on the grounds that it was not the way ahead. I hope that my question is not out of order, but why has it taken the Government so long to see the light about that?
	On the question of training, I am not clear why the area is not already covered by Section 54 of the 2000 Act. As for indirect incitement, I have great difficulty in distinguishing between direct and indirect incitement. If a man condones or glorifies acts of terrorism with the intention of inciting, which appears to be the essence of the new offence, why is that not already covered by the common law offence of incitement? I hope that having seen the light on preparing to commit an act of terrorism, it may still be possible for the Government to see the light on interception of communications.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in relation to acts preparatory, the noble and learned Lord will know that we have never underestimated the difficulty of drafting proposals in relation to these matters which are sufficiently tight and which enable proper direction to be given in relation to the criminality involved. Even now, let me say plainly that I do not see it as an easy task. We have a proper regard in this country for the acuity of drafting because we know that citizens' liberty will be at stake. We do not make such provisions with anything other than the greatest of care.
	In relation to intercept evidence, I assure the noble and learned Lord that we continue to consider that matter. That is something that I have made plain from this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions.
	Section 54 of the Terrorism Act 2000 does not include training in the use of hazardous substances, as opposed to noxious substances. It is in order to cover all substances that we seek to extend the provision. There were a number of technical loopholes in the Terrorism Act 2000 that we now seek to close.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I add our gratitude to the Home Secretary for the extremely consultative and inclusive approach that he has taken in drawing up this legislation. I have two questions for the Minister.
	My first question follows what has already been asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, with regard to indirect incitement to terrorism. The Minister will know very well that during apartheid many people in this country strongly supported the anti-apartheid movement and did so even after the creation of Umkhonto we Sizwe, which could have been described as taking part in acts of violence—for example, with the blowing up of electric pylons, and things of that kind. Can the Minister assure the House that every effort will be made to try to ensure that there is a sharp distinction between those we rightly accuse of incitement to violence on grounds of their wish to create acts of terrorism and those who are generally attempting to overturn extreme dictatorships when there is virtually no opportunity in the country itself to raise questions about the behaviour of those governments? I shall not list them, but the Minister will know very well the kind of governments that I have in mind.
	Secondly, in relation to that matter, can consideration be given to the issue of hazardous substances? Might there be a review of the list of hazardous substances which now governs the behaviour of pharmacists and chemists to ensure that that list is added to if necessary to ensure that certain chemicals that are currently sold over the counter are rather more difficult to obtain?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness particularly in relation to the last matter that she mentioned. Certainly, it is an opportunity for us to look at the issues to make sure that the provisions that are in place are fit for the purpose, particularly in the new environment in which we find ourselves.
	On incitement and the nature of indirect incitement, I reassure the noble Baroness that we understand the difficulties that we will jointly face in coming to a definition that is sufficiently precise to capture the behaviour that we all abhor and brings to justice those who are identified as guilty of those improper acts but does not improperly attack those who should not be caught, on the basis that they have not done anything that would incite someone to commit an act of terror. I have already said that I appreciate the difficult task ahead of us. I certainly reassure the noble Baroness and the House that we will do all that we can to make sure that we get it right.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I applaud the way in which the Home Secretary has gone about this difficult matter. I appreciate that there are many difficulties still to be fully overcome.
	I should like to mention two matters. The first is the extent to which the emergency services proved themselves to be ready for the tasks that were given to them on that sad morning. They had done a tremendous amount of training. Often, training is a difficult thing to keep going if no immediate sign appears that that training is required. The emergency services carried that out with great persistence. The fruit of that training was manifest in the tremendous success that they had in dealing with a horrific situation on that morning. It is also a matter of great providence that the No. 30 bus was exploded just outside BMA House, where very experienced casualty doctors were having a meeting, so that immediate expert advice was obtainable.
	The other matter that I want to touch on is the fact that it appears very plainly that a perverted religious ideology can be extremely dangerous—that is what we have seen—and that those who embrace such an ideology can be extremely dangerous. Therefore, does the Minister agree that it may be wise to consider whether it is right to restrict comment on such things in any way, when, after all, what we wish to do is to expose the danger of such ideology and the danger to young people in particular of embracing it and acting on it?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I join the noble and learned Lord in commending the emergency services. They behaved in an outstandingly courageous way. It certainly demonstrates all the work that we put into developing resilience and, indeed, into the Civil Contingencies Act. That preparation really came good, if I can put it in that colloquial way. There was no one who did not feel immense pride and appreciation at what they did.
	The noble and learned Lord rightly ventured on to the sensitive issue of the impact of perverted religious ideologies. I assure the noble and learned Lord that those issues were very much in our minds before 7 July but also particularly since. The legislation that we are about to consider remains in its form, but both Houses of Parliament will go through that legislation. I am sure that it will give us an opportunity to reflect further.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I also welcome the spirit of consensus on these issues that has been developed on all sides of this House and on all sides of another place. That is extremely welcome and important. As a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and as an adviser to Transport for London, I both welcome and share the congratulations to all involved in the emergency services and the transport services for the work that they did on 7 July. It was truly remarkable, and it was truly a commitment to the contingency planning that had gone on.
	I would welcome some clarification from the noble Baroness about the offence of indirect incitement. In particular, is it intended that it will apply to indirect incitement to acts of terror inside this country and outside this country? I can see the difficulties of definition, but I can also see the importance for matching international obligations that we are seen to be even-handed on this one. I would welcome some clarification.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the new offence of indirect incitement is intended to capture the expression of sentiments that do not amount to direct incitement to perpetrate acts of violence but that are uttered with the intent to encourage individuals to commit or attempt to commit terrorist acts. The requirement for intent is very important. Anyone simply expressing a view, however distasteful it might be, will not be committing an offence; it is the intention that we are going to try to home in on. It is intended that the offence of indirect incitement will apply both in relation to the United Kingdom and abroad.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I invite the Minister to consider including in the definition of acts preparatory words that one can take from Section 22 of the Theft Act in relation to handling stolen goods, that the offence is only committed if the perpetrator knows or believes that what he or she is doing is an act preparatory to terrorism.
	I raise that because one the features of the problems that arose on 7 July appears to be that the bombers were able to prepare for and carry out their attacks without the knowledge of anyone closely connected with them. A possible way in which that can happen is if someone invites you to go out and buy some materials, allegedly for a perfectly harmless purpose, and you might well help them out by going and buying them. You would in fact be involved in an act preparatory to terrorism, but if you know nothing about it you should not be prosecuted.
	I mentioned the handling of stolen goods; one has to be careful not to go so far as to criminalise suspicions. There must be some people in this House who sometimes speculated whether something offered for sale at a low price fell off the back of a lorry—that is a suspicion. If you know or believe, that is a different matter, and that is an offence.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord makes a good point. The precise definition has not yet been settled upon. The provision seeks to address the mischief where individuals have been identified and they have been known to have instigated an act of terrorism or to have been planning, preparing or conspiring to commit an act of terrorism. The provision is to enable us to intervene at that preparatory stage and not have to wait until they do something more that demonstrates further intent in relation to dates.
	If, for instance, one went out and purchased certain goods that one had ready, with other information, that may be sufficient for an act preparatory. We are trying to think about that mischief and then try to cast the net tight enough to restrict it to those who are engaged in that way. I absolutely bear in mind what the noble and learned Lord said.

Lord Roper: My Lords, I join others in saying how much we appreciate what the noble Baroness and the Home Secretary have done in keeping the House informed of the developments and maintaining a consensus. However, we are moving into a rather extended Recess and wonder how the House as a whole, as distinct from the Front Benches, may be kept informed of developments. In one of her answers, the noble Baroness referred to a Parliamentary Question being tabled, but that will not come into the public domain until we sit again in October. Will she consult her noble friend the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms to see whether ways could be found—perhaps e-mail—so that other Members of the House who wish to be kept informed of developments during the Recess could become aware of them?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am more than happy to take that away. I have indicated that we will give the clauses to the Front Benches as soon as they are ready. I certainly hope that we can rely on each Front Bench to try to make arrangements so that those interested from their Benches will share that information, but I absolutely take on board what the noble Lord says and I shall see what we can do.

Commons Bill [HL]

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Its purpose is to improve the management of common land in England and Wales. Common land is one of the ancient institutions in our country. It was a core component of the manorial system in Norman England, and shared grazing of some kind was probably widespread even before then. Today, common land remains important in the agricultural economy of many upland areas in England and Wales, but it is also a vital resource for recreation and biodiversity and a key element in the landscape of the countryside, as well as a cultural kingpin in many hill farming communities.
	It is a rare occasion on which this House has an opportunity to debate the arcane depths of commons law. The previous government Bills on common land were in 1964 and, before that, 1908. I look forward to debating with noble Lords the exercise of rights of pannage and piscary, the importance of hefting, the principles of levancy and couchancy—that is how you pronounce it—and the origin of rights of common appendant and appurtenant. I can even tell your Lordships what those terms mean.
	The Bill has had a long gestation. As long ago as 1958, the Royal Commission on Common Land recommended legislation to provide for three things—registration, public access, and improved management. The first of those recommendations led to the Commons Registration Act 1965, which was well meant but somewhat flawed and designed only as a short-term measure to identify and register common land and town or village greens. I note that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who is not in his place—indeed, I did not tell him that I would refer to him—spoke at Second Reading on that in 1965.
	The second recommendation—public access—was eventually delivered by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which will have secured a public right of access to nearly all common land in England and Wales by the end of the year. But on the third recommendation—improved management—the aspirations of the royal commission remain unfulfilled. The Bill will deliver long-term improvements to the registers of common land and town or village greens, new mechanisms for the management of commons, and much-needed reforms to the controls on works and fencing on common land.
	The Government have consulted extensively on new legislation. Consultation in 2000 was followed by the publication of a White Paper, the Common Land Policy Statement, in 2002. There has been a continual process of consultation and dialogue since, and we are grateful to all who participated in the consultations and seminars; their input has been invaluable in preparing the Bill.
	I will now take noble Lords through a summary—a summary only, I promise—of the Bill. Part 1 deals with the registration of common land and greens. It greatly improves the registration system introduced under the 1965 Act. It makes similar reforms to the registers of both common land and greens, but for convenience, I will refer simply to the commons registers.
	Clauses 1 to 5 require the registers prepared under the 1965 Act to continue to be kept by commons registration authorities. It applies to England and Wales, with certain exceptions, such as the New Forest and Epping Forest, which are subject to special legislation. Although there is common land in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Bill does not apply to those countries because their historical, legal and management contexts are very different.
	A key measure in this part is the requirement for the commons registers to be kept up-to-date. Clauses 6 to 13 require transactions affecting common rights to be registered in order to be effective. So, for example, if the owner of a right of common wishes to surrender that right to the owner of the common, the right will only be extinguished when the register is updated accordingly.
	There is a particular point to which I would draw to the attention of the House. Most rights of common are traditionally attached to the land farmed by the commoner. Following a decision of the judicial committee of this House in 2001, commoners are entitled to dispose of rights of common independently from that land, thus severing the common right from the land to which it was originally attached. The local link between the commoners and the common may then be lost, since the rights can be sold to anyone, including farmers who live far away from the common and have no awareness of the local management practices.
	Clause 9, therefore, prohibits the severance of rights of common, with limited exceptions. It is intended to have effect from the date of publication of the Bill, 28 June 2005, subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent. The Government believe that retrospective legislation is necessary to prevent commoners from severing their rights prior to the Bill coming into force.
	Clause 14 sets out criteria for registering land as a new town green or village green, where the land has been used by local people as of right for lawful sports and pastimes for a period of at least 20 years. It makes clear that a new green may be registered where the use of the land continues up to the time of the application for registration, or within a time specified in regulations. This will reverse the effect of a recent decision of the Court of Appeal, in what is known as the Trap Grounds case, which has made it practically impossible for a new green to be registered against the wishes of the landowner, despite 20 years of use.
	Clauses 15 and 16 enable commons to be exchanged for another piece of land, whereby one piece of land can be freed of its status as common land and another piece of land can be registered in its place. However, the Secretary of State will consider the public interest before permitting such exchanges to take place.
	Clause 18 provides for corrections to be made to the registers in certain circumstances. I should add that the Bill does not generally enable corrections to the number of rights registered under the 1965 Act. We recognise that many rights registered in the 1960s were excessive or inflated and, sometimes, out of all proportion to the capacity of the common. But we believe, as most stakeholders do, that we must move on and that reopening these registrations 35 years later would not be helpful in achieving better management of our commons.
	I have already mentioned that the 1965 Act was flawed. Schedule 1 enables the rectification of certain mistakes in the commons registers that arose out of misguided or mistaken applications under that Act, or where applications were rejected because of a mistaken understanding of the law at that time. We believe that the Bill presents a balance in carefully defining limited criteria, both for the de-registration of registered land, and for the registration of new land.
	Schedule 2 provides for a transitional period to register events occurring since the commons registers were compiled, thereby bringing the registers up to date.
	Part 2 of the Bill deals with commons associations. At present, there is a lack of effective agricultural management on commons and many have suffered significant deterioration. Severe over-grazing has led to damage to the soil, biodiversity and landscape, which is reflected in the poor state of 43 per cent of England's commons that are sites of special scientific interest.
	Part 2 will encourage better management of commons by enabling commoners, landowners and others to form statutory commons associations to manage agriculture. The primary purpose of commons associations will be to protect and promote sustainable agriculture on common land. The associations will function through majority voting. That will make it much easier to get agri-environment funding for common land, as an association will be able to enter into an agreement based on a majority vote rather than being frustrated by a few dissenting voices.
	Clause 25 enables the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to establish commons associations by order. Orders will be made only in response to local demand: commons associations are not to be imposed from the top down, but cultivated from the bottom up. In particular, Clause 26 requires there to be substantial local support for an association to be established.
	Individual establishment orders will set out the functions and administrative arrangements of each commons association, including how majority voting will work. Commons vary widely, so each association will be tailored to suit local circumstances. I intend to have a model establishment order ready for the Committee on the Bill in the autumn.
	Clause 30 sets out the functions that may be conferred on a commons association. They include making rules on the management of agricultural activities, the exercise of common rights—such as controlling grazing where overgrazing is a problem—and the removal of livestock grazing unlawfully. Rules may provide that a breach is to be a criminal offence, but we intend that they will be subject to approval by the Secretary of State or Assembly.
	We intend that each establishment order will specify the circumstances in which the association must seek the consent of landowners or other interests for certain agricultural activities. Our primary aim in this Part of the Bill is to empower associations to regulate activities relevant to sustainable agricultural management on commons. That is best achieved through majority voting on decisions that are then binding on everyone, but we recognise that landowners' rights to manage their own land must be respected, and we will hold further meetings with stakeholders so that we can achieve the appropriate balance.
	Part 3 modernises and streamlines existing controls on works on common land, which are primarily found in Section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925, as many ex-law students will recall. Those controls provide that works that restrict access may not be undertaken on common land without the consent of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly. We have taken the opportunity to make three significant changes to the controls.
	In the 1925 Act, controls apply to land that was subject to rights of common on 1 January 1926. Clause 36 instead provides that controls on works will apply to all registered common land. We believe that that will ensure significantly greater clarity. The Bill also brings commons subject to other legislation, metropolitan commons and National Trust commons into the modernised regime.
	The second change is that we have extended the powers to take action against unlawful works on commons. At present, that power is available to the landowner, the local authority and those with a legal interest in the land, such as commoners. Clause 39 extends that power to include anyone who has a right of access to the land and to commons associations.
	Thirdly, the controls will extend to new mineral workings. Such works were exempted from the controls contained in the 1925 Act, but we see no reason why, in 2005, potentially significant development of that kind should continue to be exempt.
	We have also taken the opportunity to modernise the procedures for applications. There are new criteria for determining applications, and we are introducing new powers to enable the Secretary of State or National Assembly to regulate the application process; impose conditions on a consent; charge fees for applications; delegate the decision-making powers to another person or body; and direct that certain persons or works should be excluded from the need for consent.
	Part 3 also re-enacts existing powers for local authorities to act to protect common land with no known owner. It provides a power of last resort to certain public bodies to stop unauthorised agricultural activities causing damage on common land where neither the commoners nor land owners are able to prevent it.
	Part 4 contains powers to amend other legislation to update references to common land and town or village greens to refer to "registered" common land.
	I highlight the welcome that the Bill has received from many interested parties—I have correspondence with me from a number of them, and I am sure that other noble Lords do too—and from noble Lords themselves who have been kind enough to discuss the Bill with me and my officials before Second Reading.
	The Bill cannot alone secure the continued vitality of our common land, but it will go a long way towards providing better management and protection for future generations. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bach.)

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his introduction of the Bill. He has unravelled the complicated nature of the rules and legislation that has covered common land and the rights of common over such land since the Norman Conquest. I congratulate him on his clarity, which I am sure will assist us all in our endeavours. I also thank him for the briefing discussions we have had prior to this Second Reading.
	Common land occupies some 549,000 hectares, 80 per cent of which is privately owned and 50 per cent designated as SSSIs, a significant percentage in England and Wales, particularly in the uplands, such as the north Pennines, Dartmoor and the Black Mountains. Over half England's common land is situated in Cumbria and North Yorkshire. It is clear that the management of the common land and its interrelationship with national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and SSSIs are important.
	At the time of registration some 1,740 commons were in private ownerships, 679 had private owners for parts of the land, 1,230 were owned by parish and other councils and 431 were owned by a variety of organisations, including charities and trusts.
	Many commons have multiple owners and, according to Defra, some 1,900 have no known owners. It is a fair task that we are undertaking. Of the 7,039 common land units in England, only 34.6 per cent had registered rights of common, and those commons accounted for nearly 88 per cent of the total area of common land.
	We on these Benches support the improvement of the environmental conditions of common land and agree that in some circumstances greater collective action is required to strengthen the management of its use. We hope that commons that are currently being well managed will be left to continue with their successful working practices. I am sure the Minister agrees with me that, as he has previously said, flexibility in the approach to common land is key.
	However, we are disappointed that the Bill before us is so skeletal and leaves so much to regulation. As he indicated, in 2000 the Government committed themselves in the rural White Paper to addressing this common land legislation and have subsequently had various stakeholder groups and working parties running through 2003 and 2004. Therefore, we hoped that by now, some five years on, the Government would at least present us with a complete Bill.
	The first part of the Bill deals with registration of common land and town and village greens. Aspects that concern me are mainly related to the work of the registration authorities. These are county councils, unitary authorities, London boroughs and Welsh county and county borough councils.
	There seems to be general agreement that the 1965 Act has not been successful. Whether that is because it was flawed legislation or because it was not used adequately is not as important as the consequence of its failure. I do not know, and perhaps the Minister can tell us, how many commons and greens are still disputed. Is there a backlog; if so, is it evenly spread across the authorities or do some have enormous problems and others few or none? Has the failure affected rural areas more than urban authorities? Are authorities with a large total area of common land worse affected than those with less?
	In implementing the Bill, do authorities have adequate staff, with the necessary qualifications and experience, or will recruitment and retraining be the order of the day? Will the Minister outline the full consideration of the amount of additional work and the cost to local authorities that that will require? Does he realise that in many authorities the burden of work will fall on departments already grappling with the Licensing Act?
	While on the question of local authorities, will the Minister address an issue of growing concern to many authorities? In an increasing number of cases in urban areas—for example, Sunderland, Richmond-upon-Thames and Oxford—the 20-year use rule (for walking dogs, for example) has been used by activists opposing housing proposals to enforce the registration as a village green of land that few reasonable people would view to be a village green. Plans to build affordable housing, which the Government are pressing on local authorities, have been frustrated. How will the Bill address that issue, and has the department made any assessment of the amount of land that might reasonably be registrable as a village green under the existing legislation and the risk that that might pose to housing needs?
	The detail of the Bill will be examined closely in Committee, so we shall be able to dissect the rights and wrongs of creation, severance and the transfer of rights in gross. I am, however, intrigued that the question of computerisation occupies fewer than 15 lines of type. Experience in Defra, which the noble Lord will get used to, of the use of computers to monitor progress—for example, on foot and mouth disease, to assist in the registration of the cattle-tracing scheme or to streamline payments across the Rural Payments Agency—has not exactly been a bed of roses. The problems over the mapping exercise following the CROW Act have also been less than reassuring. I think that we shall need to spend time on Section 24.
	Commons associations have been called for, in one form or another, for some time, and we support that. They are an obvious way to obtain the consensus necessary to get better management of commons to the advantage of both the environment and those with rights in their use. However, the Bill poses as many questions as it answers.
	Do the Government envisage that an area of common will have its own association, as in Yarningale; will it be possible to have different bits with separate bodies, as in Yarningale north or Yarningale south; or will there be a case for a single association to cover an entire county or even a sub-region, as in Warwickshire or central West Midlands?
	What is the position regarding the National Trust? There is apparently a potential conflict between the powers and duties of the trust under its Acts and the powers and duties of the statutory commons associations. Unless it is made clear that the National Trust Acts take precedence on trust-owned commons, the Bill could undermine the protection and promotion of the wider public interest, particularly in access and recreation, but also the conservation of the natural and cultural heritage.
	Although we are assured that in practice the creation of the commons associations will be in response to local demand, which the Minister has recognised again, there is considerable central direction involved. I wonder whether, in order to meet government targets, we might find that locals are perhaps being "persuaded" to respond in the required fashion. Will the Minister confirm that? The Bill fails to determine the associations' remit or to go into detail about their membership. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose will refer to that in greater detail.
	How will the Bill interact with the provisions in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act? I am particularly thinking of developments in rights of access to private property across common land by a vehicle. Many householders have already paid for the privilege. Many more presumably will be affected as new houses are built. Will the Minister assure us that no new interpretation of any part of the Bill will adversely affect the newly acquired rights of such residents? Will he also provide an indication of what legislation will take precedence? For instance, I believe that I am right in saying that some commons are used by members of the public for camping, lighting fires and playing ball games, whereas the CROW Act specifically prohibits those activities.
	The first and second parts of the Bill rely heavily on the Government's old friend "regulation". Despite the regulation task force, the much vaunted government targets to reduce regulation and the obvious fatigue in the population at large with consultation, training and paperwork consequent on it, this Bill is riddled with regulation. For example, in Part 1, there are 16 subsections which begin with the words, "regulations may" and a further nine which use a phrase such as "regulations may provide": it appears 59 times in the Bill—and then there are the orders.
	We cannot possibly scrutinise effectively a Bill which reveals so little about itself on the surface. Our suggested approach is for the Government to publish their regulations in draft before Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that that will happen. We approach a long Recess of three months. I would be grateful if those regulations could be forwarded to us at home in good time before we return in October.
	There should also be guidance in advance of Committee on the probable level of fees that may be charged by registration authorities and commons associations, and on the costs and charges to be levied as part of the process of challenging existing records or applying to amend them.
	The Bill is concerned with the management and protection of common land; that is, management for the sake of the environment and to promote sustainable agriculture, and protection to ensure that the public right of access is not diminished. We support the general intention, but have concerns about the degree to which the rights of owners may be subordinated to the demands of a small number of people, many of whom may not be local.
	Also, we have particular concerns about and wish to see defined the meaning of "sustainable agriculture", which means different things to different people. We must be careful to strike the right balance between farming and conservation. Linked to that, I know that other Members of your Lordships' House will raise their concerns about how the Bill might affect shooting and fishing rights.
	Throughout the Bill, the phrase "any person" recurs. Will the Minister tell us whether it is to be construed literally or whether it may be taken to mean an individual, a body of people or even a named body? Do the Government have any intention to filter the demands of any person to ensure that the legislation is not used in a frivolous or a malicious fashion?
	My extensive postbag reveals that in general the Bill has widespread support, and in principle we support it too. However, many questions remain on the detail as well as several concerns on points of principle. We shall need to cover all those issues as we go through the Bill in Committee. In the mean time, however, I await the Minister's response to today's proceedings.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and for laying out its historic context. Even today, talk of making changes to legislation relating to common land or to rights of common can and does provoke strong feelings, particularly in rural communities. That is why I am looking forward to getting this Bill right. Although it is primarily technical in nature, amending the omissions and mistakes of past legislation, I believe that we form part of an historic tradition in trying to address these issues. Indeed, I share with the Minister the pleasure of sharing in, as he put it, "plumbing the arcane depths" when exploring the arcane language and its meaning. It continues to have great resonance. It refers to rights that are particular to certain localities and regions. I cite one example from my own parish which I will explore further in Committee, that of potwalloping, which takes place on Northam Common.
	Land, and the rights and responsibilities of its ownership or use, lay at the heart of the Government's Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. All sides of the House recognised then that commons needed further legislation in their own right. Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches commend the Government for making time in their legislative schedule to address the failures of past legislation. It was recognised in 2000 that this needed to be done. We need to be able adequately to protect our common land, as well as the rights to it which continue to be exercised.
	We warmly welcome the Bill, as do most NGOs and agencies and, indeed, all the correspondents I have heard from. We also welcome the fact that Defra has made it plain that it is still open to making improvements to the legislation. But I shall want to press the Government on whether they have recognised sufficiently the changing nature of the use of many commons.
	Several questions arise on Part 1, including what will happen to unclaimed common land. I want to explore further in Committee the extent of such unclaimed land and how the Government see its future within the framework of this legislation. I refer also to the resourcing of those local authorities responsible for carrying out the work of registration. I am most familiar with county authorities. They are already overburdened in trying to meet the improvement requirements set out in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 using only meagre resources considering the enormous and historic nature of the work they are undertaking. I am sure that the Minister is also aware that the backlog of public inquiry work that has accrued since the passing of the CROW Act is enormous. If that work is multiplied many times by taking into account what is being faced by local authorities, he will recognise that the additional work involved in the registration of commons will need substantial further resources. The same staff simply cannot do any more than they do already.
	Part 2 covers the management of common land. We welcome the setting up of statutory commons associations where it is felt that they are needed. Such management will be able to recognise the tensions between the needs of those with grazing rights, wildlife management and rights of public access. I am sure that plans can be developed to manage those conflicting needs so as to ensure the best possible outcome. But the Bill as drafted defines such outcomes in terms of "sustainable agriculture". That is far too narrow and I hope that we are successful in agreeing a much better definition.
	It is clear that some commons will have to be managed especially for their wildlife value. The Minister has already acknowledged that many are not currently in good condition. However, some areas, particularly in Wales—about which my noble friend Lord Livsey will speak in detail—and the West Country, common grazing rights are critical to the existence of traditional farms, which may own only a small acreage of meadowland but will have extensive grazing rights. We are talking here not only about the importance of the wildlife on that common land but of the social and economic viability of some of our most fragile rural communities in some of our most environmentally sensitive areas.
	So, while the Bill refers to over-grazing—which, I agree, historically has been a problem for many commons—against the background of the reform of the CAP under-grazing and no grazing is likely to become as much of an issue. It could be just as damaging to an SSSI which relies on a grazing regime because bracken and scrub can very quickly ruin a previously flower and butterfly-rich area.
	Indeed, as highlighted on Monday in an article in the Independent, the number of butterflies could be a useful indicator for Defra about the health of the countryside. One of the department's current indicators as regards quality of life and farmland improvement is farmland birds whose numbers seem to have been turned around slightly by this year's figures. I suggest that at the Committee stage of the Bill we might introduce another indicator—that is, the number of butterflies on common land.
	I draw to the Minister's attention the view of the National Trust. In its useful briefing it stated:
	"It is important that SCAs have the flexibility to meet the future needs of society and are able to make the most of new business opportunities e.g. managing commons for flood management, water quality, carbon sequestration, public health and wellbeing".
	I could not put it better. I agree with its examples of some things which are extremely important but are not mentioned anywhere and do not fall within the remit of sustainable agriculture.
	We on these Benches are also concerned about the emphasis in the Bill on the influence and power of the national government agencies, particularly Natural England when it is formed. We shall question in Committee whether it is balanced sufficiently with local knowledge and local policies.
	It will be important to explore the question of commons which are likely to be lost as a result of managed coastal realignment and rising sea levels. I appreciate that it may take the Minister some time to gather the information about which commons will be particularly affected, but the Bill needs to look forward and make provision for the likely serious results of climate change and the effect it will have on such commons.
	Finally, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that vast swathes of the Bill are covered only by the word "regulation" at the moment. The Minister has indicated that he will bring forward one model establishment order. I hope that we will see more model regulations because, if we do not, we will certainly need to make detailed amendments to those parts of the Bill which we are unhappy to leave simply to regulation. In the mean time, I warmly welcome the Bill and look forward to working on it in Committee with the Minister and other noble Lords.

Lord Walpole: My Lords, I also thank the Minister for his very clear introduction of the Bill. I apologise for speaking behind his shoulder.
	My personal interest lies in the smaller commons in arable areas, which are environmentally very important as little islands for wildlife, especially in Norfolk. I tried to find out whether I had any pecuniary interest to declare in speaking today, as a county directory just before the war suggested that a certain common was owned by the Bishop of Norwich and my father—one at each end, that is, not shared. However, after checking with Norwich County Council yesterday, I found that there is absolutely no reference anywhere to the ownership of the common. So I do not believe I have any interest to declare. I have no doubt that it would be very expensive for me to hire a lawyer to find out.
	I fear that that is typical of much of the registration that took place as a result of the 1965 Act, as the authorities and, as far as I am concerned, the counties were not obliged to follow up or check the areas of individual commons, to check that the list of owners was complete, or to check the number and rights of commoners or that commons were being managed in a suitable way.
	I intend to be brief, as I am sure that others with much more experience than me will have much to say. Also I cannot go into detail about a visit to a local common by myself and my friend Mr Norman Lamb, the Member of Parliament for North Norfolk, as I believe the matter is sub judice. However, I shall say that the common in question was claimed by someone who did not appear, on any evidence shown to me, to have title to it. He went out of his way to fence the whole common, which is against any law relating to commons that I have ever heard of.
	I feel that the Bill is a good start in rectifying many of the problems that have arisen. While I do not agree with every single word of it, I am sure that it will leave this House in a form that will be very helpful to those whose job it is, in the future, to protect and to ensure a good future for commons and wildlife. I was particularly encouraged by remarks made by a member of staff at Norfolk County Council to whom I spoke yesterday. She said that she was looking forward to being able to do her job more thoroughly. Indeed, many environmental and professional bodies have written to me saying the same thing.
	However, I have one question for the Minister. Having read Part 3 carefully, how can a commons association, or whatever body manages a common, deal with Travellers who may turn up on a common? We all know that the usual laws for dealing with such a problem on private or public land are cumbersome and time-consuming and that considerable damage may be caused to an ecologically sensitive site before they are removed.
	That is all I want to say now, but I can assure the Minister that I shall not be silent for further stages of the Bill.

Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, in preparing my thoughts for the debate, I read a short history of common land and common land law. It brought it home to me how divisive the issue had been over the centuries, especially in your Lordships' House. It is interesting to see how the debate has changed from the early days of the 19th century, when it was about enclosure and the hardship that emanated from that. I thought that it was encapsulated by the doggerel of the poet at the time who said:
	"The law doth punish man or woman who steals the goose from off the common, But sets the greater felon loose who steals the common from the goose".
	That was the feeling at the time.
	As the Minister has said, we have to move on, and we have moved on. In a sense, the debate is now more about how we balance the use of commons, many of them privately owned, with the demands of public enjoyment. I welcome the Bill as a step in that process. It allows us to modernise and to clarify. With the emphasis on public benefit, it takes us a long way forward.
	Right from the beginning, I see, as the noble Baroness said, that it has traditionally been a divisive matter and that there is still potential for division. I declare an interest in the sense that I am clearly on one side. I happen to have been brought up in south Cumbria, where we had the great benefit of south Cumbria being run by the Lakes Urban District Council. I never realised why, but under Section 173 of the wonderful Act to which my noble friend referred—the Law of Property Act 1925—the public had access to all common lands in urban districts. So we could go where we wanted, and if we went a little further north or further afield we were again lucky because most of the other commons were covered by the National Trust legislation, which again allowed access. Of course, there were difficulties; the Cumbrian farmers had to learn to deal with them and, by and large, they did.
	As we have looked at the debate over the years and moved from enclosures to public enjoyment, it is interesting to note that the county with the greatest proportion of common land in public ownership for access is Surrey. That is quite an unusual view of the rights of commoners.
	I declare a non-pecuniary interest: I am vice-president of the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society and a former chairman. We are very proud to be the oldest amenity society in existence in England, and we claim credit on our stick, so to speak, for such victories as Hampstead Heath, Epping Forest, Hainault Forest and so many other open spaces in the metropolitan areas and other areas as well. We are delighted with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which has been mentioned.
	Having said that, I was quite struck by the latest journal of the Open Spaces Society. It said that the organisation's treasurer, who travelled 600 miles across an area that the Minister knows well, the east midlands, looking at common land in Lincolnshire and Leicestershire, was appalled that commons were lost under impenetrable scrub, a car park, farm storage, a Christmas tree plantation—not the Forestry Commission, I hope—and gardens, to name just a few things. This brought it home to me that we need an inventory of common land. We need to know what the position is. I hope that the Minister can discuss this with some of his colleagues in Defra and see if there is a way to produce ground rules or a map so we know where the common land is.
	I very much welcome the Bill. It is a good Bill, although one or two aspects cause me concern as they do other noble Lords. In particular, I want to flag up something in the part of the Bill covering registration. I was rather surprised that it did not vest unclaimed common land in the local authorities. Defra's common land policy statement of 2002 proposed to enable the vesting of unclaimed enclosed common land into a suitable body. That proposal, which does not seem to be included in the Bill, would be a step forward.
	Clause 39 refers to groups of persons taking action to remove works. It talks about local authorities and about eligible persons, and I welcome that. However, I am concerned about a point that has already been raised. Does that include corporate bodies and charities? We need clarification if we are to make this work and achieve good legislation.
	Although the Bill can be improved it is, all in all, a good Bill, because it moves the debate forward and leads to clarification and modernisation. That is what I think the whole House wants.

Lord Patten: My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere. I think that his views of commons are slightly moulded by landscape in which he grew up—the heroic uplands of south Cumbria. My views derive from the rather more crowded southern part of the United Kingdom, but I certainly agree with him that we need a Domesday Book or a terrier nationally to set out exactly what is and what is not common land in due course, resources allowing.
	I am sure that the Bill has been brought to fruition—its gestation has been positively elephantine—for the most benign reasons. No one could be more benign, I know, than the Minister in all his intentions. However, I think that all of us in this place know that, sometimes, Bills that become Acts for benign purposes are used later for purposes for which they were not wholly intended, and the effects turn out to be less benign. So I intend to address my comments this afternoon to those possibilities—a bit of futurology about what might happen when the Bill becomes law. That is all the more apposite since, as my noble friend Lady Byford on the Front Bench pointed out, so many of the provisions are yet to be unveiled to us. We do not know how the regulations are to be cast and how powerful they will turn out to be.
	Whatever the benign purposes for which the Bill has been introduced, my concern is that, in an unfortunate reality, it could mark an undesirable watershed in the history of commons and even be used as a back door, in decades to come, to the incremental nationalisation of common lands through the steady, later use of the extended state powers that the Bill confers and the new roles of regulation and oversight that it gives to various "quangoiste" bodies, which, again, it is quite specific about.
	Commons are ancient. They sometimes have forms and customs of organisation and rights that pre-date parliamentary democracy. They are peculiarly British and, often, are very untidy. The best description of that quality was given by Alexander Somerville, writing in 1844 in his book, The Whistler At The Plough. He had been to visit William Cobbett, that half-radical, half-conservative—not a bad mixture, to my mind—at his Surrey farmhouse when Surrey was more concerned with agriculture than lawn tennis. Somerville described the setting of Cobbett's farmhouse, at Normandy, near Ash, like this:
	"In front lies a heathy common, in complete disorder as commons usually are".
	That disorderliness is often part of the essential quality of commons. They should not be overregulated, prettified, packaged up or, worst of all, urbanised.
	I worry about what might happen if more quangos or parastatal bodies of different sorts eventually get control of our common lands. I fear that they would soon be domesticated, criss-crossed with gravel paths, street lighting, bossy notices and all the rest of it, in the way in which our countryside is too often stealthily urbanised by people who cannot, unlike the Minister, tell their pannage from their estovers and want to create, essentially, a theme park Britain. That is not desirable.
	So I have three major problems with the Bill. As the noble Lord readily assented, we are debating the Bill as drafted and not as it may be with regulations in due course. First, I am concerned about the powers to deregister common land and substitute parcels of new land. I appreciate that, when deregistration takes place, replacement land must be provided, but where that is may be critical to, for example, public enjoyment or to the setting of some house or some church or to the way in which a cherished view is seen. A piece of replacement land may turn out to be exactly as the law will set out and exactly the same size as that bit of common to be deregistered but lack other comparable qualities. Of course, deregistered parcels of land may be fitted up for building or redevelopment. We need to be most vigilant about the danger of development by the back door.
	Secondly, I am most concerned at the extension of state power by the provisions that give the Secretary of State and our parastatal nature conservation bodies the right to intervene to stop agricultural activities that may have been going on for decades or centuries. For example, will they suddenly be able to judge with their new powers that this or that agricultural practice is undesirable because of some passing fashion? That seems to be the thin end of a potentially very big wedge. We need rather more examples from the Minister of the widespread damaging agricultural practices for which this legislative sledgehammer is being brought into being.
	Will the state and its quangos be allowed to change agricultural practice on unfettered whim, and who will control those bodies? If the commoners do not like what is happening, to whom will they be able, as local people, to appeal? Will they be able to do that only through expensive court processes, by seeking access to judicial review? Many commoners would find that very difficult, being "little people", as they would describe themselves, not corn barons or whatever.
	Thirdly and lastly, we need far more detail and reassurance over the new bureaucracies that will be set up or that the Bill will enable. The local commons associations may be local and harmless, but the overarching, overriding commons advisory bodies could turn out with their unfettered powers to be rather more dirigiste over time. In the case of the former, what level of local support will be needed to set up a commons association? Will the process be really democratic? How will that support really be measured? Much more important, will the larger, more powerful commons advisory bodies not only have oversight and initiative but the capacity to be turned into a useful parish pump appeal court of last resort to which locals can go if as commoners they think that their community commons association has been overbearing?
	Could what the Bill terms—in that deathless and fearsome phrase—"the appropriate national authority", whatever that is, in the end decide ab initio to initiate or superimpose commons associations at will and on registered town and village greens—in other words, will it make that imposition from above that the Minister said was not his intent? I do not sense that the Bill makes that superimposition of a formalised and unwanted extra local bureaucratic layer impossible.
	I end on this note. What seems on the face of it in 2005 a modest tidying-up exercise, 40 years after the previous Act in 1965, could turn out another 40 years on, in 2045, if the powers are exercised to their fullest unfettered extent—we need to ensure that the powers are fettered—to be the year when the creeping nationalisation and bureaucratisation of our commons, which have been in existence for 1,000 years or more, began. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on those points as the Bill proceeds.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, many of us in the House today will welcome the Minister to the travails and excitement of his first Defra Bill. We look forward to working with him. This is not the time to go into a lot of detail, simply because we have not been allowed the time to do so—and, in any case, the Bill is going to a Grand Committee, all being well. This is the kind of Bill that is ideally suited to a Grand Committee. We have a lot of hard work before us in that regard.
	I should just say to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, that some of us would try to claim William Cobbett as a liberal—but we can argue about that some other time.
	Commons are remarkable for their wide variety, ranging from quite small bits of—

Lord Patten: My Lords, the House may wish to be aware that I used the word "conservative" with a small "c" rather than in upper case.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am grateful—and socialist with a small "s", no doubt.
	We have village greens and urban commons, which we recognise as urban commons; and then we have urban commons—to which the noble Lord, Lord Clark, referred—in the Lake District, which are not urban commons at all but which by happy historical accident were opened up to access some 80 years ago. We have the small rural commons to which the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, referred; and, in my part of the world, apparently arbitrary chunks of very large areas of our uplands are commons—in the Pennines, the north Yorkshire moors and the Lake District.
	We should recognise that what those areas all have in common—"in common", sorry about that—is that they are all historical leftovers. They are remains of a time when far more of the country consisted of common land. As the noble Lord, Lord Clark, said, a large number of enclosures resulted in commons becoming to a large extent isolated pieces of land comprising various sizes and various varieties. When we consider the legislation, we shall need to recognise the huge range of commons that exist.
	However, they all have a resonance. They have almost a mystical resonance with people who have nothing to do with commons and not much directly to do with the countryside any more. It is like a folk memory of the England of centuries past—the world of open fields, pastures, common grazing land, people cutting turves for fuel, going for their firewood, and cutting rushes and reeds and so on. They are part of a much wider sense that the countryside belongs to all of us. That is probably best shown when people who perhaps do not visit the countryside very often nevertheless go out in the summer and the autumn to pick wild berries. I refer to the whinberries of the Pennines near us and to the wild raspberries in the country park just upstream from where we live. I have tremendous childhood memories of going "blegging" and of picking blackberries in the Vale of York, where we were fortunate to have country cousins whom we could visit.
	Commons are a very specific, very technical phenomenon but they have a real resonance with people in the country. That is why it is so important that they are preserved and are not allowed to be taken over by completely private interests and done away with.
	The Bill is a technical Bill that concerns the registration, management and protection of commons. As such, it involves all kinds of different people who have an interest in commons. Commoners themselves are very often, although not always, farmers. The future of upland livestock farming is controversial and topical. There is a great fear that under the single farm payment hill farmers will miss out. The average age of hill farmers in the Lake District is approaching retirement age. Many of their children are not going into the business, as it were. There is a real danger that livestock farming may collapse in many of our uplands. There is concern about the future of hill farming land. Those matters do not directly involve commons but commons are of concern to farmers who are in that situation.
	There is also the whole question of landscape conservation. The National Trust says that it owns 10 per cent of the commons of this country. Many of them are situated in some of the most important and spectacular places. I refer to recreation and access interests. The noble Lord, Lord Clark, mentioned the Open Spaces Society. I refer to the interaction between this legislation and the CROW Act, which many of us have fond memories of discussing five years ago in this House, including during the all-night sitting that finally got it through this House. We do not undertake such sittings nowadays. Conservation interests are involved and the matter has great implications for local authorities. The Local Government Association is rightly concerned about the additional burdens that the legislation might place on local authorities.
	The Bill will not solve most of those problems. However, our task in considering the Bill in Grand Committee and at other stages is to do what we can to scrutinise it and, where possible, to improve it in such a way as to ensure that it does not interfere with or harm the different interests which have to be reconciled, and which I believe can be reconciled. Ideally, we should try to improve the situation.
	The Bill has had broad support from an astonishingly wide variety of bodies such as the NFU, the Open Spaces Society, the National Trust, the Local Government Association, the CLA, the RSPB and others. They all have proper concerns about the Bill's details in view of their different interests. The Bill has been introduced into this House. I believe that we have a huge responsibility to look at it very carefully, to discuss it among ourselves and to send it to the House of Commons in an improved state, and in a state whereby the House of Commons will not have a great deal of trouble in saying, "Yes, this is a good Bill".

Lord Chorley: My Lords, I come to this Bill as rather a greenhorn, although I remember that when I was the chairman of the National Trust we usually labelled common land issues as "handle with care". That said, the Bill is important and essentially well-drafted. As the Minister said, it has had a very long gestation, going back to the Common Land Forum of the 1980s. I should like in passing to commend the pages in the Explanatory Notes on the historical and legislative background. I too believe that it is important to place the Bill as part of an evolutionary process going back to the Norman Conquest. In that context, I should like also to commend the work, over 150 years, of the Open Spaces Society and incidentally to note that it was one of the founding fathers of the National Trust.
	I am sure that there will be general support for the main provisions of Part 1 on registration. Clause 9 on the prohibition of severance of rights of common will be warmly welcomed. It is one of the major clauses in the Bill, and I suspect that there may be some technical aspects of it that we will need to consider carefully. Clause 14, on the registration of greens, is also to be welcomed. Clause 15 on the other hand needs further thought. Is there, for example, a danger of "chipping away" of small commons under the 200 square metres proposal in Clause 15? I regret that there is not time to go into that further.
	Part 2 is on management and the measures that will allow and encourage statutory commons associations to be formed at a local level so that commoners can regulate how their commons are used. I hope that there will be broad agreement on the generality of this part. It seems to me that in the main what is proposed is straightforward and sensible. For example, Clause 30, on functions, is an important clause that seems essentially sound. I particularly welcome the public interest requirement and the link across from there to the nature and landscape conservation points in the clause. At subsection (7), one might also have expected the inclusion of "heritage" to be bracketed in with "nature" and "landscape"; the more so given that, as the Open Spaces Society points out, it is picked up in a similar context at Clause 37 on consent. Please, I too would like to know what on earth we mean by "sustainable agriculture".
	This is not a point for legislation, but can we be assured that the licensing authority will not be too bureaucratically heavy-handed over the constitutions of the smaller commons associations? If we are going to achieve our objectives of better management, a relatively light touch would seem sensible.
	I shall now address protection. I have the impression that there is widespread recognition that the procedures for consenting to works on common land need a thorough overhaul and that in general the proposals are supported. Nevertheless, there are a number of issues of detail that we will need to examine in Committee. I will confine myself today, due to the time limit, to one point—the powers of local authorities over unclaimed land and arising therefrom the "intervention" section. There are two points. First, should the actions of an LA be merely permissive, or should it have a duty to protect? Secondly, should the definition of an LA be widened to include a national park authority or an AONB consultation board? One notes that in Clause 44 relating to unauthorised agricultural activities the relevant authority does include an NPA. Why should Clauses 43 and 44 be different in that regard?
	I am conscious of having to skim over a whole series of interesting points. A general point has been mentioned by almost all speakers—the numerous places in the Bill where, quite properly, a particular purpose will be affected by regulation. It would be helpful to know in general terms—and I am not suggesting that it should be in the Bill—what the powers will be, who will be consulted, and how the processes will be carried out. That is important.
	Finally, we must get the Bill right because it is likely to be many years before we can tackle the subject again. The last time that we legislated in this field was 45 years ago.

Lord Haworth: My Lords, I welcome the Bill. Common land is an important part of our natural heritage. It is of value to agriculture, of course, but also to recreation, landscape and nature conservation. Over the years, it has become increasingly evident that the legislation that covers common land is becoming out of date and the land itself is in many cases at risk from overgrazing and other depredations. The Bill will protect our common land for generations yet unborn, enabling commons to be managed sustainably and providing additional protection against misuse, encroachment and unauthorised development.
	The accessibility of common land is greatly valued by the public, as it is largely unfenced. Indeed, there are common misconceptions about the ownership of common land. Many people believe erroneously that such land belongs to the people in some mysterious sense. Although that is not the case, most commons being privately owned, the utility value of common land cannot be denied. By the end of this year, however, public access to common land will have a proper legal basis, as the provisions of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 finally come into force. That Act has been one of the great achievements of this Labour Government and those who value increased access to the countryside should not readily forget the passage of the "right to roam" legislation.
	I am aware of the lengthy historical background of common land and common rights, stretching back to 1066—and all that. However, the Metropolitan Commons Act of 1866 and the Commons Act of 1876 were the first general legislative measures largely intended to protect and manage common land.
	The present legislative framework—the Commons Registration Act 1965—is the legislation that now needs to be brought up to date. The Bill will modernise and simplify outdated legislation so that commons can be managed sustainably by commoners and landowners working together. Locally, it will give common rights holders the power to regulate their own activities through statutory commons associations, which will be able to adopt binding rules by majority voting. It will provide commons with additional protection against overgrazing, abuse, encroachment and unauthorised development. It will provide for new powers of last resort for intervention to put a stop to practices which make commons ungovernable, such as leasing or selling-on rights of common to farmers remote from the community. It will help protect valuable wildlife habitats and improve public access by making much-needed improvements to existing commons registers, to allow the registration of common land that is currently unregistered, as well as the de-registration of wrongly registered land.
	The Bill is based on the DETR consultation paper of February 2000 and it is worth noting that detailed consultations have continued since then with the various stakeholders, with a view to developing a consensus on the detailed proposals for agricultural use and management. In the various briefings, which other noble Lords will have received, as I have, the widespread support for this legislation in general terms is apparent. I have particularly noticed the general support of the Countryside Alliance, English Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Open Spaces Society. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned some others.
	Of course, there is not unanimity on every single detail, but the details are matters for the Committee. Some of the details have been described to me by the Minister's predecessor, my noble friend Lord Whitty, as "fiendishly complicated". I should perhaps flag up one issue where there is concern that I feel is legitimate and which I shall want to press at a later stage. As the noble Lord, Lord Chorley mentioned, as the Bill stands no duty is placed on a local authority to take action to remove illegal works or take other steps to protect the land. The powers envisaged are discretionary and will be too weak to be effective. Such a power has existed under the Commons Registration Act 1965, yet experience appears to show that it is extremely difficult to persuade councils to take action. I hope that the Minister will be open to persuasion and that we can change his mind on that point.
	The concept of sustainable agricultural management has been developed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, particularly via the mechanism of agri-environment schemes. The Bill will facilitate the entry by commoners to such schemes, through the statutory commons associations envisaged. That will protect and enhance or restore biodiversity and particular features of the landscape, in return for annual payments which will offset the additional costs of changed farming and land management practices. In addition, the Bill will be an important vehicle to help to secure the Government's target of bringing more than 95 per cent of SSSIs up to a favourable ecological condition by 2010.
	The Bill is a modest measure which has yet to attract the attention of the great mass of the public. But I hope that it will secure a diverse and sustainable future for this most valuable and much loved natural resource. I am very pleased to have had this opportunity to express my warm support for the measure, and look forward to pursuing the particular point to which I alluded, and no doubt others, at a later stage, in the autumn.

Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear introduction to the Bill, and for the helpful briefing session that he held for noble Lords last week. The Bill comes at an important time for the countryside, for agriculture, and for access to land granted by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Therefore, it is to be welcomed. I must declare an interest in the matter. For many years I have acted as a trustee to a landed estate in Cumbria that owns many thousands of acres of commons.
	As the Minister said, the Commons Registration Act 1965 dealt with only one part of the royal commission's report of 1958, leaving unfinished business to be carried through further legislation. Now is a good time not only to tidy up the 1965 Act and deal with some of its deficiencies, but to complete the work of the royal commission.
	Two major changes in the way in which we support agriculture and manage the countryside have happened in the past five years. First, the change in the support of agriculture has moved from product support to a single farm payment and the introduction of agri-environment schemes. Secondly, access to the countryside has been moved up the political agenda so that access to common land granted by the CROW Act will be fully implemented by the end of 2005, as the noble Lord, Lord Haworth, mentioned.
	Since 1965, when initial registration took place, management of commons has been extremely difficult due to the overregistration of rights—the Minister admitted that—and the CAP grant system based on headage payments. That effectively forced farmers to increase grazing to the maximum, or in many cases to exceed their registered rights. That in turn led to massive overgrazing, particularly on commons in the north of England, with the result that much of the habitat was destroyed, particularly the heather moorland. It is no wonder that the sites of special scientific interest have been damaged by that form of government subsidy, and that English Nature has said that 43 per cent of commons classified as SSSIs are in poor or declining condition.
	The introduction of environmentally sensitive areas and countryside stewardship schemes has reversed that trend to a large extent. I shall give one example. On Crosby Ravensworth Common, where a countryside stewardship scheme has been implemented, the recovery of moorland habitat has been astounding.
	Part 2 promotes the efficient management of commons by the establishment of self-regulating statutory commons associations which can undertake the sustainable agricultural management of common land at the local level. The 1965 Act dealt only with the registration of commons, and that register is now sadly out of date and a hindrance to effective management of commons. The farmers listed have long gone or died, and farms have been sold. We will need to examine carefully the scope and power of the associations to make sure that all those with rights and responsibilities for commons have a proper part to play in their future.
	What level of "substantial support" will be required before commons associations can be established? Will the rights of the landowner be sufficiently protected? Sporting and mineral rights are valuable and need to be taken into consideration. Access to the countryside granted by the CROW Act, and particularly access to commons, will need to be monitored very carefully if the nature conservation aspects of the commons are to be safeguarded and improved. Ground-nesting birds are particularly at risk from the walking of dogs, for instance. Some of those birds are rare, and it must be made easy and effective for a landowner to close access at times when it is detrimental to the nature conservation interest of the common.
	Part 3 introduces a regime for obtaining consent for the undertaking of certain works on registered common land, such as building walls, erecting fences, digging ditches and building embankments. It is important to ensure that the prohibition of such works does not hinder the carrying out of essential land management practices. We must look carefully at the power of the national authorities to step in and stop unauthorised agricultural activity which is detrimental to the protection and promotion of sustainable agriculture.
	As my noble friend Lady Byford asked, what is sustainable agriculture in that context? Why not sustainable conservation? A reasonable balance should be established. Many areas of common land are of a high landscape quality. Why should that be spoiled? It would be deemed most unfair if one or other Secretary of State could step in and grant permission for a wind farm with multiple wind turbines on common land where the national authority could also prevent the common rights holders from erecting a new fence or digging a ditch. That is an example of the dangers that my noble friend Lord Patten had in mind.
	I have stated that I welcome the Bill as the Commons Registration Act 1965 failed to deliver on public access and improved management, the missing pieces from the 1958 royal commission report. I look forward to the detailed deliberations that will take place in Grand Committee in the autumn.

Lord Tyler: My Lords, I have a long-standing interest in what I regard as these long-delayed reforms. I served as a vice-chairman of a national park committee for Dartmoor in my twenties, and then advised the Countryside Commission and the national parks collectively on the issues some years ago. I note from the Explanatory Notes and from what the Minister told us that the Bill is considerably dependent on the consensus achieved by the Countryside Commission in its work on the Common Land Forum in 1986.
	In another place, I sought to secure the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill. I very much refer the Minister to the experience that we had there and in your Lordships' House—the Bill started in this House—because many of the issues that we are debating arose during its passage. Sadly, that Bill was sabotaged in the end by Members of another place who sought the opportunity to ride a stalking horse for general access legislation, and as a result the Bill fell. As a direct result of that, the Bodmin Moor commons have suffered from overgrazing to this day. Environmental management has been undermined and incentives for responsible commoners have been denied. The chance to benefit from ESAs, to which other noble Lords have referred, was by that simple act removed.
	My personal interest is that I live and have lived for the past 30 years under the shadow of Bodmin Moor. With the Bill, I am particularly concerned to secure for future generations the experience that my family and I have had of the harmony of well managed uplands in the care of those who wish to practise truly sustainable agriculture.
	I am conscious of the sense of history that has already been referred to by several noble Lords. Those, like myself, who regret the delay in bringing forward the proposals will, I hope, still recognise that it has taken a long time for the legislation to be passed in this country.
	I note that Clause 45 repeals the Commons Act of 1285, from the reign of Edward I. We are not rushing this. It reminds me of the Cornish expression, "dreckly", which, simply translated, is something like the same as the Spanish word manana, without the sense of urgency.
	At this stage, I am primarily concerned with Part 2 of the Bill, which deals with reform of management arrangements. I have already referred to our problems encountered on Bodmin Moor, by commoners and environmentalists alike, with irresponsible overgrazing by a small minority. Indeed, noble Lords have already referred to the problems that mass invasion by New Age travellers can cause. That took place on Bodmin Moor, too.
	A different Private Bill set up a very successful management scheme on Dartmoor, but its passage was assisted by the existence of the national park designation there, with all the financial and legislative advantages that conferred. On Dartmoor, a Private Bill established a successful management scheme—but that is a national park, and huge financial and legislative advantages have been given to all concerned.
	The Bodmin Moor Commons Bill, to which I have referred, started life in your Lordships' House in 1994, was exhaustively examined here, along with many of the issues that we are considering today, and received its Third Reading only on 15 February 1996. During that time, both Houses had an opportunity to rehearse the issues with which your Lordships' House is concerned this afternoon. During a debate in another place on 21 May 1996, the then Labour spokesman, Elliot Morley, not only supported our Bill, but committed his party to early implementation of the recommendations of the Common Land Forum. Nine years later is better than never. The present Bill fully reflects and echoes the same need for effective local management.
	However, I am far from clear as to how the Government propose to walk the tightrope between unnecessary and over-powering central control on the one hand, by setting up the associations, and effective but sufficiently flexible local self-discipline on the other. A small minority of irresponsible commoners cannot be allowed to destroy the consensus between the majority and environmentalists on the best way to avoid immutable overgrazing. I recognise that the Minister, who referred to majority voting, is alive to this problem.
	Sustainable agricultural husbandry is always a desperately difficult balancing act. That is especially the case where conflicting interests in difficult economic conditions—which, surely, is the case among upland livestock farmers—can be so potentially disruptive on the uplands. The landscape and ecological sensitivity of those areas are known to all noble Lords and have been referred to.
	It is vital that the Bill can develop robust new management structures, building on the existing associations and taking full advantage of their local knowledge, but giving them the strength to insist on effective self-discipline in the areas for which they are responsible. I have referred to the number of commons on Bodmin Moor and, of course, in the Private Bill, we sought to bring them together in a single commoners' council. I hope that the Minister in his response will indicate whether that is the sort of pattern that he would wish to see in other parts of the country.
	I very much welcome the Bill. It has been long delayed and we look forward to its implementation.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill, which is long overdue. It is, unfortunately, ironic, as has been said, that the real pressure for its need—over-grazing for the past 13 years—is about to disappear at the same time that the Bill is enacted. I predict that, with the introduction of the single farm payment, under-grazing will become a more serious problem. Nevertheless, the Bill is welcome.
	I shall touch on one or two management issues. In Clause 7, subsection 4 obliges the registration authority to refuse an application for variation if, in its opinion, it would increase the burden on the land in question. I have two comments to make on that. First, with under-grazing becoming a problem, increasing the burden on the common may be what is needed in the future. So the wording should be "detrimentally increase the burden". Secondly, if that matter is cleared up, will the Government provide some guidance on how the authority will obtain access to proper agricultural advice to ensure that it takes a professional decision?
	Moving on to Clause 9, I totally support the prohibition against severance. The connection between commoners and the common is an essential part of the culture and, indeed, is the raison d'être of our commons. I am thus not totally supportive of the proposed rights of the Countryside Council for Wales and Natural England to perpetrate severance and possibly ride roughshod over the commons associations. Always bearing it in mind that overgrazing could be a thing of the past, might it not be better for the Bill to allow the associations themselves to buy in—if that is the correct term—the rights or stipes and to hold them in abeyance for when under-grazing becomes a problem. Maybe, they could then distribute, sell or lease them in some way to other graziers who might resolve their under-grazing problem.
	I warmly welcome Part Two, on management of the commons. This is the meat of the Bill. I welcome the flexibility that allows the commons associations to be established and to cope with the different circumstances in the many different types of commons that exist in our country. Having sound local management of those commons is crucial for their sustainability. However, I do not approve of Clause 33(3), which states:
	"The appropriate national authority may revoke any rule made by a commons association".
	If you give responsibility, you should stick to that. It is not a good idea to give it with one hand and to take it away with the other. The commons associations will know what is best for their part of England or Wales, without being told that by some national body. They will be able to take all aspects of management into account on a local basis.
	The Minister spoke about empowering commons associations. It seems odd to put one's faith in the setting up of these associations and then, through that ultimatum, to indicate such a lack of confidence in the same Bill. In any case, there are sufficient clauses governing the management of commons inherent in the Bill to make such an ultimatum unnecessary.
	Turning now to the clauses on protection, I recognise that there is a large element of public involvement and interest in all commons, especially after the CROW Act. I also recognise that some people abhor the existence of any man-made works on our commons. However, that viewpoint needs to be balanced against the desire of the average member of the public properly to enjoy the common. That inevitably requires proper management and, to a large extent in this context, will depend upon having a satisfactory grazing programme.
	Therefore, it is important that the consenting regime for works on common land, as set out in Clauses 36 to 42, should work quickly and efficiently for the benefit of proper management and the proper enjoyment of access on the commons. I would have thought that the digging of ditches and trenches for drainage was different from the normal restricted works—particularly where there is short-term flooding, such works must benefit both visitors and stock.
	I suggest that there should be an option of fast-track works where there is a natural assumption in favour of permission. That would include drainage works. Similarly, works carried out for the benefit of animal welfare might require some fast-track treatment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, mentioned Travellers, whose presence might require urgent action. In that respect, the building of tank traps on the edge of village greens and commons might be relevant. Tank traps are small ditches with low wooden fences that keep off other problems too, such as motorbikes, joy riders, fly-tippers and other illegal intruders, but do not prevent access by foot.
	Without some form of fast-tracking and looking at the consent procedures in Clause 38, I am afraid that it will take a long time for any improvement works, even if urgently needed, to be carried out on any of our commons. I ask the Government to come up with a satisfactory solution.
	My final point is that the combination of Clause 39 and the CROW Act means that anyone in the world can now object through the county courts to management works on the commons. I do not believe that the county courts have loads of spare time on their hands. Thus, it would seem to be more sensible to limit such objections to the locality where the objector is more likely to be a regular user of the common and thus have due cause. I accept that there are probably legal difficulties, notably of definition, with that approach.
	In conclusion, having made my few points, I congratulate the Minister and Defra on the Bill, which is long overdue. I am sure that it will be beneficial to commoners, to the commons and to all who use them, including flora and fauna, particularly of the two-legged variety.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, having been a critic of Defra in the past, it is a surprise and pleasure to thank it for its openness in the consultation period and its willingness to consider proposals put forward. It is also a pleasure, but no surprise, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for hosting the meeting last week.
	As we heard, the 1965 Act was flawed. Another Act was promised "very soon" to rectify the problems, but 40 years is not very soon. Many rights that were wrong were registered, and some rights were not registered at all. But there is no ability now to correct that. Can the Minister say why not? Farmers in places such as Dartmoor have been severely prejudiced by the 1965 Act. They were promised by the government at the time that it would all soon be okay because another Bill would come through. They are now not going to have a chance to rectify the situation. I agree with what my noble friend Lady Byford said when she pointed out some of the difficulties of the Bill. It is without doubt a bonus to lawyers. They will have a field day.
	My remarks from now on will mainly concern non-urban and larger commons. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, I do not like Part 2 and I would advise any owner to steer well clear of it and stick to voluntary agreements. Like my noble friend Lord Patten, I am intensely suspicious of statutory schemes involving a Secretary of State.
	The briefing that I have received indicates that many bodies are already thinking of the commons more in terms of landlord and tenant—I am more used to landlord and crofters—than in terms of owner and common right holders. I find that profoundly disturbing because governments of both persuasions—the government of which I was a member was no different—have increasingly given rights to tenants at the expense of owners. I can foresee exactly the same situation occurring here under a statutory commons association. Therefore, there is no question in my mind that owners' interests will be prejudiced by the Bill.
	As Part 2 is to work from the bottom up, as the Minister said, can he confirm that an owner will have the power to veto the formation of an association? In contrast to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I do not like Clause 30 at all. In particular, I dislike Clause 30(3)(g). Who will have the final say when it comes to managing heather, gorse, grass and other vegetation? Will it make any difference if there is an existing agreement between the owner and English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales?
	Clause 31(3) refers to the surplus of commons. At present, that right belongs to the owner, but that is going to be transferred to the association with no compensation to the owner. What will the position be? At the end of the day, will the owner still have the right that exists now, or will it be the association?
	Now I come to the killer point about Part 2, and pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. Clause 30(6)(a) states that the association must have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance. But Clause 33(3) allows the Secretary of State to make directions. Now if one looks at Clause 31(2), one will see that an association has the power to raise money as well as to acquire and dispose of land. We have good ingredients for trouble here.
	Turning to farming and good husbandry, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that under-grazing is as bad as overgrazing. Like him, I believe that it will be just as serious a problem as overgrazing is now. Overgrazing was exacerbated by the wrong registration of interests in the 1960s and by inappropriate subsidies. However, the new farm payments schemes will help to solve the problem and it is likely to rectify itself in the short to medium-term. But it is right to stress that on some common land, it is very important that the common is heavily grazed in order to maintain the diversity of plants.
	We shall undoubtedly have to look at Part 3, Protection. Clause 36 is worrying. Does the Minister envisage a number of de minimus works that an owner can undertake without threat of a lawsuit and ending up in the county court?
	I have two final points. I hate "sustainable agriculture". Nobody knows what it means. It has a wide definition. My noble friend Lord Ullswater suggested a definition. I cast my mind back to my Cirencester days and suggest an alternative to the Minister. How about "good husbandry and land management" as an alternative? It is well documented in law and land agents knew what it meant. We did not need to go to lawyers to have it interpreted.
	Finally, what about archaeology on the common? There is no mention of archaeology in the Bill. Surely, there ought to be a responsibility for it to be preserved.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this long-overdue Bill. I hope that due time will be given to consider it properly, unlike the time given to the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.
	My first concern is that Clause 24(1) states that:
	"Regulations may require or permit the whole or any part of a register kept under this Part to be kept in electronic form".
	I stress, "may". At a time of great technical advancement, coupled with the transparency of the Government, it would surely be shameful if the word "may" is not changed to "shall" so that everyone can, with minimum expense and trouble, see a national terrier on his computer.
	My other concerns are more complex. The Bill requires commons associations to be established. Although the national authority establishing these commons associations must have regard to representations from various persons, it would be sensible to explore whether an association could be controlled by a clique, whose interpretation of, say, "sustainable agriculture" would have an adverse effect on other members and their interpretations of "promotion of sustainable agriculture" and possibly on the interests of the wider public.
	For the record, what is the definition of "sustainable agriculture" and how can we ensure that the wider public's interests are respected too? Will commons associations be able to restrict some of their members from certain types of traditional and acceptable farming practices?
	Continuing with commons associations, I welcome the ancillary powers given to them and that they can enter into agreements. Cynically, one rather suspects that this is a polite way of saying that they shall enter into agreements with national authorities to conserve and enhance, and possibly enter experimental schemes, as described in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. After all, Defra's public service agreement target aims to achieve getting 95 per cent of all sites of special scientific interest in favourable condition by 2010. That will require much conserving and enhancing, since we are told that 49 per cent of SSSIs on common land are not in favourable condition.
	That would not be possible unless commons associations enter into agreements with national authorities. National authorities hold the purse strings of heavy purses. Therefore, one suspects that commons associations will eventually be compliant. What new funds have been budgeted for these purposes? Will they come from existing agri-environment schemes or from which other budgets?
	In Clause 27, headed "Status", subsection (3) states:
	"A commons association is not regarded as an authority to which section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 applies".
	However, by virtue of the commons association entering into agreements with national authorities, will they not be the agents of those authorities enforcing the Act as a whole? One must wonder if this awe-inspiring fact will dawn on them as they form themselves into associations.
	I declare an interest as a person who is responsible for caretaking an SSSI, although it is not classified as a common. I have much experience of national authorities' demands. To help future associations and myself, will the Minister define the words "enhance" and "concern"; and what is the definition of a "sound experimental scheme"? It would be sad if commons with historical characters of complete disorder, as described in the commons book, were enhanced incorrectly. I believe that that was a concern of the noble Lord, Lord Patten. It certainly would be a concern of mine and other noble Lords.
	Finally, what responsibilities will these common associations have regarding the safety and well being of the general public and wildlife? For instance, would they be responsible for the control of rabid foxes which could threaten the safety of the public and other animals?
	I, and other noble Lords, look forward to expanding on and exploring the concerns and questions voiced today in future stages of this much welcomed Bill.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, like most other speakers in this afternoon's debate, I must begin by welcoming the Bill. I apologise to the Minister for having been unable to attend any of the briefings that have been held. I also make a declaration of interest. I am both an owner of common land and of stints on other lands and also the same in the capacity of trustee.
	My remarks will come from the perspective of the north of England. I dare say that much of what I say will be equally true in Wales and in the south-west. As a number of speakers have already said, the problems of lowland commons are in some respects, and in some respects only, somewhat different. It seems to me that the crucial point about upland commons is that they still operate as part of a wider pastoral agricultural tradition, which we see not only elsewhere in the British Isles—the Minister commented on Scotland and Northern Ireland—but on the Continent too, for example, in the Pyrenees.
	The crucial point here—and I disagree with what I think the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said but which I am not sure that he meant—is that the common-land system is not in fact an archaic anachronism; rather it is a living form of land tenure, which in itself is part of a useful and productive agricultural system.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I did not say that it was an anachronism; I said that it was a relic. It is not necessarily an anachronism.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the noble Lord's semantic distinction that he drew to my attention.
	The point is that in the uplands the system of common land is as relevant to contemporary agricultural practice as tillage of enclosed land is in, say, East Anglia. The misfortune that the commons have had goes back to the atrophy and then final death of the copyhold system, which was brought about in the end by the Law of Property Act 1925. The system of managing the commons depended upon the manorial courts and, once the copyhold system finally died, the general work of the manorial courts went with it.
	The Minister has referred to the 1958 Royal Commission and the 1965 Act and so on but, as everyone has said, the problem is that things have proceeded far too slowly since then.
	A number of previous speakers have talked about land. It is very important in thinking about the problems of commons to appreciate that both the common land itself—using the word in a layman's term—and the rights of common are real property. They are all, in law, types of land. The problem we have had since the collapse of the manorial courts is that there has been no proper system in place to enable these very curiously intertwined rights in land to be organised in such a way that they can meet the requirements both of contemporary agriculture in particular and the wider pressures that exist. I believe therefore that it would be desirable in time to see commons associations filling the gap that the manorial court system left.
	It is important to remember in the context of the manorial courts that, first, the practice and rules that applied in them varied considerably from place to place according to the particular circumstances which pertained. But, equally, the system of law overseen by the manorial courts was, none the less, part of the law of the land.
	It seems to me that that provides a valuable and useful template for the commons associations. It is one thing to say that you should have a commons association only if the commoners concerned and the landowner want it, but you must always remember that organisations of this kind are needed only when there is a problem. If you do not have an association in place before a problem arises, you will not be able to solve the difficulty in which you find yourself.
	Therefore, I think that if you look at the matter over a longer period—and I take a slightly different view from a number of noble Lords; I may be considered a trifle idiosyncratic—there is a strong case for saying that we need to establish over time a proper system over all common land so that the various rights in land in it can be exercised appropriately as circumstances demand.
	As I understand it—and it seems to me to be correct—what the Government are saying is that the commons associations are there essentially to organise these rights in land and to organise them in the interests of the agricultural activities of those carrying that on on the common itself. I think that that is right. If you look at, for example, the Lake District, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, referred, there were a number of categories of land, some of them in the metropolitan district council area in South Lakes, which is the most rural metropolitan district that one could ever possibly find. Some land was held by the National Trust and other land was held privately. I was always brought up to believe that people could, as a matter of general practice, wander wherever they liked over the high fells. Even if the landowner did not want that, there was nothing he could do to stop it.
	The reality is that there are systems in place in this country to deal with the environmental aspects of land management from a public perspective and, now, in regard to the problems of access. The commons association should be the interface with—if it was enclosed land—the landowner and the farmer to deal with the requirements that modern society has put on it. Equally, looking at the Bill, I can see no reason why the commons associations should necessarily be restricted to single commons. There may be an advantage in several commons grouping together.
	Within that context I cannot overstate—and other noble Lords have mentioned this—the importance of membership of the association. You have to decide how you deal with stint-holders. How do you, for example, equate the right to have a sheep on the common with the right to have a cow on the common? How do you deal with other manorial rights which are affected? For example, on the Pennine commons there is little doubt that the most valuable asset, not only for the landowner but also in terms of spreading the income around the local community, is the shooting right. In many cases, grouse shooting is a very important complement to small hill farmers' incomes.
	Finally, what is the position of the owner of the soil of the land, whether or not he is the lord of the manor? How do his interests relate to those of the stint-holders? Each of these parties has politically and legally a legitimate interest in what is going on.
	I wish to deal with severance. The same principles also apply to apportionment of common rights. I agree with every noble Lord who said that it was undesirable that stints should be separated from the common. But it is probably slightly wrong to place a general embargo on transfer and severance, except to the relevant national authority. It would be much more desirable for severance to be allowed "within the parish". There is a precedent for that in the Greenham and Crookham Commons Act 2002. The wording of that Act would not be right for general legislation but it is an appropriate precedent. I intend to table an amendment to enable that to take place.
	I have three main reasons. First, as noble Lords have said, there is a risk of danger from under-grazing. Many stints are attached to small parcels of land, which, as agriculture becomes increasingly hard, effectively cease to be farms. That means that the rights to graze go into desuetude. Much the best thing is for those rights to be transferred to adjoining or nearby farms. There should be a market in those rights, which could be confined to those in the immediate locality. There is no need to bring in a national authority because there would be no case of market failure.
	Secondly, as mentioned earlier, is the question of hefting animals on commons. A lot of nonsense was talked about hefting animals during the foot and mouth crisis. For animals to heft on a common, they should be in reasonably sized groups, which makes it easier for the younger ones to learn what is necessary about the place on which they are grazing.
	Finally, management generally will be easier the fewer large stint-holders there are, rather than the myriad of people with, say, one or two rights on a common. The same general principles apply to apportionment. Rather than having, as a matter of principle, apportionment of common rights over a piece of land pro rata, it should be organised in the best interests of husbandry in the area.
	I have other detailed points but I do not want to go into them now. This is basically a good Bill, and I hope that while it passes through this House, we can improve it and make it even better.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and his department on the amount of preparatory work done on the Bill. It has been in gestation for a long time. It was being actively discussed 10 years ago, and we kept on asking when it would be introduced.
	The Bill includes many important points, but, as the Minister will be aware from the variety of speeches today, there are concerns. It is interesting to quote from the Inclosure Act 1845, which said that it was:
	"An Act to facilitate the Inclosure and Improvement of Commons and Lands held in common, the Exchange of Lands, and the Division of intermixed Lands; to provide Remedies for defective or incomplete Executions, and for the Non-execution of the Powers of general and local Inclosure Acts; and to provide for the Revival of such Powers in certain Cases".
	That was more than 150 years ago, but, interestingly, some of those points still apply today.
	I happen to be the only Member of this House from Wales to have spoken on the Bill today. I have been working hard as a steward at the Royal Welsh Show, so it has been difficult to find the time to work on the Bill, but I have discussed it with a panoply of people at the show. I have some quotations on what people think about the legislation:
	"It is a very familiar issue to me",
	and:
	"There is no woman or man who lives more than about 10 miles from a common in Wales. It is a very, very familiar sight".
	Many of us would have preferred to have a commons Bill for Wales. There is a tradition of free access to commons in Wales. The right to roam in harmony with commoners and landowners has existed for not only decades but centuries.
	A third of Breconshire, where I come from, is common land. No county in England or Wales has a higher proportion of common land. Many small farms depend on sheep grazing for their economic viability.
	Amazing things have happened to our common land in the past 70 years or so. When I was a primary school child during the Second World War, the War Agricultural Executive Committee ploughed an entire common upland at 1,000 feet. Italian prisoners of war grew potatoes throughout the common, in rows a mile long, followed by wheat. After the war, all the land went back to grass—it was S23 ryegrass, bred in Aberystwyth.
	Common land is part of a working environment. The Bill, when enacted, will be warmly welcomed if it provides a secure balance between the rights of graziers and landowners and the need to respect the environment. In Committee it will be difficult to achieve the balance that probably we all seek.
	One of the functions of the Bill is the protection and promotion of sustainable agriculture. Many noble Lords have asked what that statement means. There must be a balance between securing economic sustainability, so that people in the countryside do not become a rare breed in their own environment, and sustaining the natural environment through biodiversity. Frequently, events such as the foot and mouth outbreak have had an impact on the countryside. We on the Brecon Beacons had to slaughter 18,000 ewes during the outbreak, with the result that the stocking rate has decreased considerably. Farmers have told me, and I saw at the Royal Welsh Show, that there is far more grazing on the Brecon Beacons now than there was before the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, rightly referred to common agricultural policy reforms and how headage payments have encouraged farmers to keep far too many sheep. The situation is now substantially different because of CAP reform. I agree with noble Lords who said that overgrazing will rapidly become under-grazing, which will create a management problem that must be addressed.
	Over the past couple of days I have been discussing the registration of rights and the rights of commons associations. It is a difficult issue, given the wide range of common land throughout the United Kingdom. After leaving Wales, I was fortunate enough to work in the Pennines, where the situation was quite foreign to me. I was unfamiliar with the farm maps of the uplands, talk of stints and such matters. Coming from Wales, I was not at all familiar with the system in the north of England. That has been brought out in today's debate.
	The Farmers' Union of Wales is exercised about certain issues, although I am pleased that Defra has made it a stakeholder in its discussions, which has enabled it to resolve a lot of points. The union was particularly concerned about the role of county councils and unitary authorities in the registration process. That has been ironed out, and, we are glad to say, all the union's arguments have been accepted. But there are concerns about a situation that arises leading to the fresh registration of rights in common.
	The union says that the registration of grazing rights, provided that those claiming the rights can adduce appropriate evidence, should be a relatively straightforward matter which can be put right. Only those persons who are claiming as owners of the dominant holding, under the process which existed under the Commons Registration Act 1965, will be eligible to apply. There might problems of misallocation and, in some cases, no rights, but they may be able to be re-established. The union is concerned about that.
	The situation of commoners is very important. It is difficult to achieve equality between the rights of commoners and the rights of owners. However, I believe that the majority voting system in the case of commoners will sort out a number of previous problems. Certainly, I know of instances where commoners on one hill have had severe disagreements among themselves about how something could be resolved and have never managed to achieve it.
	The flaws in the 1965 Act, which came out of the 1958 royal commission, frankly, should not have occurred. The 1958 royal commission is well worth reading. If noble Lords can get hold of a copy, I would advise it for summer reading. It is brilliantly written by people such as Dudley Stamp, who is probably our most prominent geographer of the past century. Sir Ivor Jennings wrote other parts of it. It is an easy and most interesting read. We would all become very well informed from the information gathered at that time.
	We are pleased that county councils and unitary authorities will continue to keep and administer registers. That must be right: it came out in 1965. We are also pleased that severance, as many others have said, has been addressed and, to a certain extent, resolved. That is very important. It is crucial that dominant land is attached to common grazing rights.
	We as a party will work hard to ensure that all aspects are addressed conscientiously in this Bill, that people's human rights, in relation to common land, are properly protected, and that the balance between those human rights and the ability to make a living in the countryside are balanced with the important aspects of the environment and wildlife.
	I believe that that can be achieved with good will and common sense. There is plenty of it in this House. The speeches today give us hope that a good result can be achieved with a lot of hard work in Committee.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, perhaps I can consider myself fortunate that coming from Scotland, as the Minister pointed out, I do not have any direct interest to declare in the immediate subject of the Bill. That is particularly so when I saw how my life or tried to find out how my life would be shaped in a rather opaque way by clauses such as Clause 28(6), which goes on about regulations being amended by regulations in terms amended in relation to the terms as first prescribed. However, I declare an interest as a landowner and a hill farmer.
	We have heard today from a wide perspective, in the true traditions of the House, including owners of commons; those who have lived in a dominant tenement; those who, I take it, own a servient tenement; those who have enjoyed access, such as the noble Lords, Lord Clark and Lord Haworth; and those who have enjoyed the history, such as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and others. Their contributions, founded on experience of the common land system, bring a wealth of knowledge and understanding to our debate.
	The Minister kindly offered us briefings on the way in which he and his department were approaching the Bill. On occasion, I have wondered whether we spoke the same language, especially regarding sustainable agriculture. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and my noble friend Lord Rotherwick have mentioned that difficulty. In fact, we have seen the term used in a different sense by various noble Lords.
	Sure enough, the phrase "sustainable agriculture" occurs in Clause 30(2), but when I go further into the clause and its stipulations on the functions of commons associations, what do I find? There are sections on the removal of livestock; on having regard to guidance given by the appropriate national authority; on nature conservation and conservation of landscape; and on the protection of public rights of access. They are not directly related to sustaining agriculture. There is no sense that an important yardstick might be seen in agricultural production or in the viability of farming units.
	I understand rather better the instructions given to the 2002 stakeholder working group, which was told to seek a consensus on proposals for,
	"agricultural use and management of commons",
	with no mention of sustainability. I almost feel that I should ask whether it is the purpose in Defra to fix the meaning of the trendy new term "sustainable agriculture", which is supposed to encompass all the criteria in the Bill and few of those to which the men who have been trying to make a living from the land have been accustomed.
	That approach seems to me, as it did to my noble friend Lord Ullswater, to have more to do with a sustainable, ecological prescription than it has to do with agriculture. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he feels "sustainable agriculture", the latest technical term for use in industry, is on a par with "modulation" and "degressivity".
	As my noble friend Lady Byford has said, there are many aspects of the Bill that we will have to consider carefully. A worry arises in Clause 14 about the criteria for the registration of greens. The noble Lord, Lord Clark, mentioned the urban commons in Cumbria, but it seems to me that there is no need for a town or village green to be adjacent to housing or in a built-up area. That may be as it should be, because perhaps the local cricket pitch is on land that has been lent to the club at some distance from the village and everyone thinks that it should be managed as a village green.
	My noble friend Lady Byford drew the attention of the House to the fact that the right to apply for registration of a green depends on grounds of indulging,
	"as of right in lawful sports and pastimes",
	for 20 years, when it can be a question only of walking the dog. My concern is that that is a recipe for ensuring that landowners will consider barricading everything that is not currently open to access and will try never to let anyone go on it without permission again. Even the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in its brief seems to suggest that that would have to be overcome, perhaps by incorporating some definition. In Committee, I would like to ask the Government whether they would consider, particularly, an exception for a form of legal access agreement where the owner does not want a permanent right to be established immediately. That would give a chance for review. That would probably ensure that there would be less resistance to a fully comprehensive network of footpaths being created in the first instance. My noble friend Lady Byford also mentioned the worry about spurious claims for village greens purely as a gambit to prevent development.
	In common with my noble friend Lord Inglewood, I find another knotty problem in Clause 9, entitled, "Severance". I have no doubt that some commons have experienced problems with absentee holders of rights who remain unconnected with the policies and wishes of those who are actively involved. My hope would be that, with our efforts to set up commons associations and the conditions that we attach, it would go a long way towards ensuring that everyone who has rights will have to be connected. If they are not, they will be unable to influence what is going on.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned an issue about which noble Lords must be aware. On 6 July, the National Trust produced a worrying study of 60 tenanted farms on their properties which showed that, under the single farm payment system, all those in the hill and upland areas would become economically unviable, let alone unsustainable. The question that that raises in my mind—it was touched on by my noble kinsman Lord Cameron—is "What happens to grazing rights when the dominant tenement is a farm that has been abandoned?". If agricultural sustainability is incorporated in the aim, surely severance should be retained, designed and directed towards those who are recognised as potentially active users of the right.
	Even more worrying is the factor mentioned by my noble friend Lord Patten. If, at the end of our debate, we are left with purely Clause 9(3)—where the right of severance may be transferred only to Natural England or the Countryside Council for Wales—can the Minister explain whether that implies that within the Government's intentions is the possibility that in a process of attrition, more and more of those areas will become a fiefdom of Natural England and we will see a form of common land nationalisation?
	My last words are on the commons associations themselves. The Bill fails to go into any detail on their constitution or their basic administration and working. That creates a wealth of questions. For example, will there have to be a minimum number of people involved in order to form an association, or technically could one person alone constitute the body? How will decisions be made? The Minister said in his opening speech that decisions should be made by a majority vote. If so, how will that majority be defined? Who will chair the meetings, and will the post be one that rotates among the members? How will the process of setting up an association be triggered? Does the Bill allow Her Majesty's Government to set up an association without receiving an approach by commoners or owners themselves?
	I could go on, but in the spirit of a Second Reading debate, I believe that I have asked too many questions already. However, your Lordships will have a feel for the amount of the unknown in the Bill. It is one more example of where the devil is in the detail, and I feel that the argument for flexibility does not justify leaving so much to regulation. Let us hope that many answers will be set out in the model agreement mentioned by the Minister. In particular, let us hope that we have sight of it before we reach any further stages.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been a very constructive debate on a particularly complex and challenging subject. Members in all parts of the House have welcomed the Bill, and it seems to have attracted widespread support from most parts of the country. That is important, as there are vast amounts of common land in England and Wales. As my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel—another Welshman who would have liked to be here today to accompany the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, but was unable—has pointed out to me in correspondence, although 3 per cent of England is common land, a massive 8.5 per cent of land in Wales is common land.
	Of course, I recognise from our debate today and from the briefing sessions held last week that there are areas of the Bill that we could perhaps improve further. It is our intention to continue to work with stakeholders and parliamentary counsel over the Recess so that, if necessary, we can table amendments in time for Grand Committee in late October. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Livsey, for their praise of the Explanatory Notes. Such notes are not always praised. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for his words on how the officials had responded.
	I shall attempt to address some of the specific points made during the debate. There is not a chance that I will deal with them all, but I shall do my best. I shall start with the words "sustainable agriculture", which have exercised many noble Lords, starting of course with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. However, noble Lords too numerous to mention made much the same point. I suspect that we shall return to the subject once the summer holidays are over.
	Let me say this for today: we want commons associations to improve the management of agricultural activities on common land. That includes the social, economic and environmental aspects of agriculture for current and future generations. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, spoke of the generations to come. We believe that such management will contribute to a wider range of public benefits on commons, and I remind noble Lords that commons associations will also be able to make rules to bind all those sharing the resource.
	The phrase "sustainable agriculture" can be defined in many ways. A rigid definition set out in the Bill would restrict the ways in which individual associations could function on different commons. Activities that are appropriate for a large, privately owned upland common might not be suitable on one owned by the National Trust, which must balance agricultural use with providing for public enjoyment, or on a common designated as a SSSI, where nature conservation might be of paramount importance.
	I turn next to the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Patten, that this may be the start of some land grabbing by the state—not intentional, of course; the noble Lord was careful to say that—and that perhaps 40 years on that may be the result of the innocent-looking legislation being debated on Second Reading in your Lordships' House today. He is wrong. This is not a way to secure state control of land; it is a sensible attempt to make the complex law in this area more modern and more understandable in the years ahead.
	The noble Lord put several questions to me. Can the relevant national authority impose commons associations on an area? As I pointed out in my opening remarks, commons associations will be formed from the bottom up, and there must be substantial support from the key interests in the common before the relevant national authority would establish the association. We know that trying to impose such organisations on commoners will just not work. The proposal needs their full support.
	The noble Lord also asked what the Secretary of State and the relevant quangos—his word—would use the intervention powers for. They concern in particular the interests of landowners. The powers will apply only when unauthorised agricultural activities are carried out on common land and where they prevent the protection or promotion of sustainable agriculture. That protects the public interest where damage to a common is occurring through unauthorised activity. I emphasise that it is not a general power for the Secretary of State to intervene in the management of common land where authorised agricultural activities are taking place; that is, activities carried out by the owner or with the owner's authority. The noble Lord put a series of further questions to me, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not deal with them all now.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, asked what level of "substantial support" was required for creating a commons association. I can repeat what I said earlier: substantial support will be required depending on local circumstances. It may be that I shall be pressed on that at a later stage. For a large group of commons with several landowners, commoners and other interests such as sporting rights, the term "substantial support" might imply that a majority of all interests must be in favour of establishing an association. On the other hand, on a single common with only one landowner and a large number of rights holders, the support of the majority of commoners might be enough to establish an association.
	I was asked about sustainable agriculture, husbandry, and the balance that needed to be struck if we were to pass a satisfactory Act of Parliament. We believe that commons associations will make it easier to achieve the difficult balancing act between the economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainable agriculture, thus allowing the different interests in a common—the landowners, the rights holders and other interests—to work together. That is the aim.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised a number of issues. She asked what area a commons association would cover. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler was also interested in that question. A commons association can be formed for a single common or for a group of commons in an area. We expect that in most cases associations will be formed for groups of commons in a region or local area.
	The noble Baroness asked how many commons were still disputed. Very few commons remain disputed—that is to say, their registrations remain provisional. Some are in south Wales, where a local Act requires the registers to be reconstituted, but we are not aware of a significant number elsewhere.
	The noble Baroness also asked, quite fairly, what additional work and costs there would be for local authorities. There will be some additional costs, but people will need to pay fees for amendments to the registers and so many functions will be self-financing.
	The noble Baroness and other noble Lords expressed their worries about over-regulation as a result of the Bill and commented on the publishing of draft regulations before the Committee stage. I was careful to say in my opening speech that I gave an undertaking to publish a draft specimen order establishing a commons association under Part 2. I do not propose to publish draft regulations under Part 1, as they will be more or less routine regulations covering such matters as the form of an application and the persons to be notified. We expect to consult on such regulations following Royal Assent.
	Is this over-regulation? We believe that it is not. There is widespread support among interested parties for an effective registration scheme, and that can be achieved only if changes affecting the registers are notified.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked whether the objectives of commons associations were too narrow. No doubt, we shall consider the matter again. Our objective has always been to allow those with common rights to develop more effective and sustainable agriculture management practices on commons. Broadening their purpose would require the involvement of a wide range of other interests, which would make common rights holders less likely to form associations. If they do not form associations, it will be more difficult for them to achieve that sustainable agricultural use of commons.
	I was asked by noble Lords what the Government were doing about unclaimed common land. The Bill re-enacts existing measures to enable local authorities to act to protect common land with no known owner. We are considering what further provisions could be brought forward in Committee to improve the management of unclaimed common land.
	The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, asked about the impact that the Bill would have on Travellers. It will not alter the current legislation in place for landowners to obtain possession of their land where trespassers have set up unlawful settlements. Clause 43 also re-enacts provisions to enable local authorities to act to protect common land where there is no known owner.
	My noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere asked about charitable bodies taking enforcement action against illegal works on commons. We will look at the issue further. As my noble friend said, at present Clause 39(3) allows only a local authority or a person with rights of access to take such enforcement action.
	The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and my noble friend Lord Haworth asked about local authorities having a duty to protect common land. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to impose such a duty on local authorities. They should be able to exercise their discretion and take into account all relevant factors in deciding whether to take enforcement action.
	The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, also asked about the national parks authorities and why they could act under Clause 44 on unauthorised agricultural activities but not under Clause 43 on unclaimed land. I am advised that the national parks authorities can act under Clause 43 and Clause 44. The power for a national parks authority to act under Clause 43 is apparently contained—I certainly would not have known this without advice—in Schedule 9 to the Environment Act 1995. I hope that the noble Lord is impressed by that. I wish that I could claim the credit.
	A number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Livsey, asked about commons associations being able to deal with under-grazing as a result of common agricultural policy reforms. This is a real issue. We believe that the creation of commons associations will make it easier to enter common land into agri-environmental agreements. Those agreements will provide, we hope, financial support to achieve a wide range of environmental benefits.
	The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, asked about severance and made a point about Natural England, as did a number of other noble Lords. It is intended that rights can continue to be acquired by nature conservation bodies in order to reduce grazing pressure on over-grazed commons. Commoners will decide whether they wish to sell those rights. As to why statutory commons associations are exempt, we are considering suggestions from some stakeholders that a statutory commons association should be empowered to sever rights and manage the rights itself, but I cannot offer a commitment at this stage.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, referred to the prohibition on works under Part 3 of the Bill and asked whether they should not hinder management works. He also asked about the Secretary of State's powers with regard to wind farms. The controls on works in the Bill essentially repeat the controls contained in the 1925 Act. It is not the intention that minor management works that do not prevent or impede access to the common should be covered by the consent regime. All applications to undertake works are considered on their individual merits. Clauses 36 and 37 ensure that all proposals will be carefully considered in accordance with the criteria set before any decision is reached. Planning permission will be required for major works such as a wind farm. Clauses 36 and 37 will introduce an extra control over works on common land.
	The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked a number of pertinent questions. He asked whether commons associations would be formed if land owners or commoners opposed their creation. We do not believe that full support from all interests is necessary for the establishment of a commons association, but prior to establishing an association, the Secretary of State must consult local interests and can establish an association only where there is substantial support. An association is therefore unlikely to be established where there is significant opposition from key interests. If the vast majority of commoners on a common want to establish an association and the owner opposes it, our view is that the association may still be created.
	The noble Earl asked why the Bill did not allow for the correction of mistakes and fraudulent excessive registrations of rights under the 1965 Act. We have listened to what interested parties have said about that and, as I said in my opening speech, we recognise that a number of rights registered in the 1960s were exaggerated or inflated. However, in common with most stakeholders, we believe that we have to move on from there and that re-opening the registrations all these years later will not be helpful in achieving better management.
	I was asked how the rights of owners would be dealt with in any association. All the major interests in a common will be represented on the governing body of the association. An association can manage only agricultural activities on a common. That does not mean that it can always override the rights of landowners. Our intention is for the establishment order to determine the procedure for obtaining consent and specifically to identify where, for what activities and from whom consent is required.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, asked about the funding for new agri-environment schemes. Such projects on common land can be accommodated in the recently launched higher-level schemes. I dare say that we will hear more about that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, asked about severance being allowed in the parish. Clause 9(5) enables regulations to prescribe exceptions to the general prohibition. We will consult on whether exceptions such as the ones mentioned by the noble Lord might be allowed in particular areas, especially where such practices have been long accepted. I look forward to talking to the noble Lord about that issue.
	That is the best that I can do in answering the questions. I shall finish by saying that everyone who has spoken recognises the importance of commons. Sometimes it is said that common land is an ancient institution, older than Parliament itself. It is certainly an important part of our national heritage. It is valued for many reasons, not least for agriculture, public access, landscape and nature conservation. The prospect of potwalloping with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is exciting, perhaps even more so than blegging with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I do not know whether, even after all these years, the noble Lord could be arrested for the theft of, I believe, raspberries, which he admitted.

Lord Greaves: Blackberries.

Lord Bach: My Lords, forgive me—blackberries. We have also heard examples of commons at risk from over-grazing, under-grazing and from abuse and encroachment. I believe that everyone thinks that the Bill is essential, 40 years on. If we are to protect our commons for current and future generations, it is long overdue. We can conclude the agenda for reform, which was set all those years ago by the Royal Commission, so as to confer new management powers over commons and give them effective protection in the public interest.
	Until recently, the debate about commons reform was stymied by concerns about the Royal Commission's recommendation on public access. However, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 has now dealt with matters of access, and we can get on with the remaining reforms addressed in the Bill.
	I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part. We shall meet again in late October probably and go into more detail on the Bill. I promise the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that there will be no dreckling—if that is the right expression.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 2005

Baroness Crawley: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18 May be approved. [5th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 2004–05].

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the proposals before us seek authority for the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB) to impose a levy on employers in the engineering construction industry. Skills are vital to succeeding in an increasingly competitive global economy. We have made, and continue to make, major investments in training.
	This year the Learning and Skills Council will support further education and training to the value of £6.5 billion. We have established a network of 23 sector skills councils (SSCs) to ensure that we have a strong, clear voice from employers informing the provision of education and training. The engineering construction industry does not meet the minimum size criteria for having an SSC, but I am pleased to say that a memorandum of understanding has been agreed with the Sector Skills Development Agency that will position the ECITB clearly within the Skills for Business Network.
	We also recently published our adult skills and workforce development White Paper setting out our vision for lifelong learning in the future. We will ensure that employers have the right skills to support the success of their businesses, which still lag behind many of our key competitors. We will also help individuals to gain the skills that they need to be employable and personally fulfilled.
	We have promised that where both sides of industry in a sector agree, we will help to set up a statutory framework for training. The Engineering Construction Industry Training Board is a model of such a framework. It is, as noble Lords will know, a non-departmental public body set up under the Industrial Training Act 1982. Its role is to ensure that the quantity and quality of training are adequate to meet the needs of the engineering construction industry. It provides a wide range of services, including setting occupational standards and developing vocational qualifications, delivering apprenticeships and paying direct grants to employers who carry out training to approved standards.
	The Industrial Training Act contains provision for a levy on employers to finance an industry training board's activities and to share the cost of training more evenly between companies in an industry. It is for the employer members of a board to make proposals for the rate of levy and for the Secretary of State to make an order giving effect to those proposals.
	That is the purpose of the order before us. It gives effect to proposals submitted to us for a levy to be collected by the ECITB in 2006. The levy is based on employers' payrolls and their use of subcontract labour. It involves the imposition of a levy in excess of 1 per cent of payroll on some classes of employer. The Industrial Training Act requires such orders to be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses.
	The proposals involve a levy rate in excess of 0.2 per cent with no exemption other than for small firms. In such cases, a levy order can be made only if the proposals are necessary to encourage adequate training in the industry and if one of three conditions is satisfied. The first condition is that the proposals have the support of organisations representing more than half the employers who together are likely to pay the majority of the levy. The ECITB's proposals meet that condition.
	The Act also requires ITBs to exclude small firms from the levy but does not set a minimum size threshold. The ECITB's proposals set exclusion levels that the industry considers to be appropriate. In the order before us, the ECITB proposes to impose the same rate as last year on site contractors—that is, 1.5 per cent of total payroll and net expenditure on subcontract labour. Contractors whose combined payroll and net expenditure on subcontract labour is £275,000 or less will not have to pay the levy. That equates to an employer who employs 15 to 20 persons full-time throughout the year. It is estimated that it will exempt 48 per cent of sites.
	Last year the board decided to concentrate on activities at the craft, supervisory and first-line management levels and no levy was raised on head offices. In these proposals, it will reintroduce the head office levy at the same rates as in the 2003 order—that is, 0.18 per cent of the total of payroll and net expenditure on subcontract labour. However, head offices whose combined payroll and net expenditure on subcontract labour is £1 million or less will not have to pay the levy. That equates to an employer who employs around 40 persons full-time throughout the year. It is estimated that it will exempt 80 per cent of head offices.
	The Government recognise the vital need for employers to develop their workforce in a manner that meets their current and future skill needs. I therefore congratulate the ECITB on recognising the need to secure increased employer engagement at all levels of its activities. It is taking action to achieve that by restructuring its own management and operations to become more regionally focused. The benefits of this are already becoming apparent and I have no doubt that it will result in a step change in the commitment to training from employers throughout the industry.
	These proposals are expected to raise between £9 million and £10 million. It is worth pointing out that in 2004 the ECITB returned to the industry £1.45 in direct and indirect training support for every £1 levy received.
	Noble Lords will know from our annual debates that the ECITB exists because of wide support from employers and employer interest groups in the sector. There is a firm belief that without it there would be a serious deterioration in training in the industry, leading to a real fear that its skill needs would not be met. That was confirmed by a review of the board carried out by the department in 2003, which found that the principle of the levy is still strongly supported. The board's own annual employer surveys demonstrate equally strong support for the principle of a levy system.
	The draft order will enable the board to carry out its vital training responsibilities in 2006. I believe that it would be right for the House to approve it. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18 May be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 2004–05].—(Baroness Crawley.)

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving such a clear and thorough explanation of the order before us. This order, concerned with boosting and supporting skills and training in the engineering industry, falls within the remit of the Department for Education and Skills, yet it is clear from the debate in another place and from the speech just made by the noble Baroness that we have almost crossed over into DTI territory. I well appreciate that to sustain a competitive economy we must constantly strive to provide solid foundations in training and skills.
	Our engineering and manufacturing industries have been hard hit in recent years by redundancies and bad press. Hundreds of thousands of vacancies remain unfilled each year because of skills shortages; this costs UK employers billions of pounds every year. It is not surprising, therefore, that the levy which the order proposes is imposed at the suggestion of employers. It is done with the consent of and at the request of the industry, which sees the levy as providing greater benefit to it in the dynamic and demand-led training and skills which it provides.
	Benefits include boosting standards, ensuring consistency in training provided, developing vocational training and apprenticeships and other vital roles. This is one very positive example of co-operation between the Government and the private sector in the interests of our national economy and our engineering industry as a whole. It appears that "everyone's a winner", including small businesses, which I am pleased to see are exempt from paying the levy if they fall under a minimum threshold. For this reason, we on these Benches firmly support the order.
	However—and there is always a "however" from Her Majesty's Opposition—will the Minister consider the other side of the equation? Instead of levying employers to cover costs of skills training to keep up with the ever-growing demand for skilled workers, the Government might think about ways of addressing the ever-decreasing higher and further education training which supplies such skills at an earlier stage. I am talking about the decline in universities and schools in teaching and fostering science, in particular chemistry and engineering. I am talking about university engineering departments closing down, valuable research departments running out of funding and the growing prevalence of young people to opt for easier A-levels instead of physics and maths.
	A levy on employers should be seen in conjunction with a concerted effort to address the problem of this decline. Will the noble Baroness say what action, if any, the Government are taking along these lines?
	We have before us a significant engineering challenge in the shape of the 2012 Olympics, as mentioned by my honourable friend in another place. I hope that this will inspire and encourage our native industries to prosper and grow to show off our engineering capabilities at their finest to the rest of the world.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I think this must be the fifth year I have debated this order on behalf of my party. Normally it comes in tandem with the Construction Industry Training Board levy. Could the noble Baroness tell us what has happened to that levy? Have we already approved that? I see that we have. Clearly I was not involved in that this year, but I have been in the past.
	The levy is a remnant of the old industrial training arrangements of the 1960s—the levy grant system. With the industrial training legislation in the 1980s, this was the only industry which maintained the levy grant system. It is entirely voluntary, as the noble Baroness stressed. The industry has positively to ask for the levy to be levied and shared out. As she indicated, it is strongly supported by the firms which pay it—the larger firms in the industry. It does not apply to small firms. The Explanatory Notes show that it has a tougher impact on the larger firms which pay it than the smaller firms.
	The construction industry and the engineering construction industry have suffered from an endemic problem of the free rider and industry cowboys. Firms that are good citizens and spend money on training can find that their expenditure is for naught because as soon as they have trained somebody that person leaves to join a cowboy firm which does not spend anything on training and, as a result, can afford to offer higher wages. It was to avoid the free rider problem that the concept of the levy grant was originally introduced.
	The engineering construction industry has been in the forefront of industries in trying to improve the skills situation, in particular to overcome the cowboy skills problem. The ACE scheme, which assures competence in engineering construction, is under way. The aim is to train 20,000 workers up to level 3 standard—the equivalent of A-level but in the vocational area—by 2008. In the engineering construction industry in particular, health and safety is very important. It is vital that people are well trained and understand the importance of health and safety regulations. All this is covered by the training provided under the scheme.
	We on these Benches very much approve of the scheme. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, indicated, it is a co-operative partnership scheme of self-help. We applaud it and only regret that more industries do not follow this example. We would like to see the scheme applied more widely within other industries where training remains a very important issue.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for contributing to this short but valuable debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked about the Government's investment in science and engineering; she was critical. There is a skills strategy in play. In July 2003, we published 21st Century Skills: Realising our Potential, which set out a cross-government agenda for tackling longstanding weaknesses in the demand and supply of skills.
	Our aim is to ensure that employers have the right skills to support the success of their businesses and that individuals have the right learning and skills they need to be both employable and personally fulfilled. Significant progress has been made; the infrastructure is largely in place to tackle the issues that the noble Baroness raised.
	On higher and further education, in 2003 we launched the Success for All strategy to raise standards and improve post-16 participation. That continues its work to improve the quality of teaching and learning. The national roll-out of the first phase of teaching and learning materials continues for the Success For All strategy. The noble Baroness will of course know about the centres for vocational excellence that have been set up in further education. She will know that we have invested £220 million in further education to support centres of vocational excellence.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked what had happened to the construction board order. That was passed in February this year and was debated in Grand Committee. The noble Baroness also referred to the problem of free riders. I know that she has raised this issue previously. She saw that the levy system is to some extent an answer to that problem because it shares the costs of training across the whole industry, so that firms which do little or no training nevertheless contribute to the costs of training carried out by others. So, to some extent, it is a block on the free rider problem.
	I thank noble Lords for this short debate. The proposals before the House relate to a specific industry, the engineering construction industry. It continues to be the collective view of employers in this industry that training should be funded through a statutory levy system in order to secure a sufficient pool of skilled labour. I believe from our useful debate that this is not in dispute. I believe that the order should be approved and I commend it to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Liverpool City Council (Prohibition of Smoking in Places of Work) Bill [HL]

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Its purpose is to protect employees and members of the public in Liverpool from the effects of second-hand smoke by prohibiting smoking in places of work throughout the city. The Liverpool Bill is identical in its purpose and content to the Bill that will be introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, shortly after I have spoken. We are grateful to all noble Lords who have put down their names to speak and particularly look forward to hearing the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Stratford, who is temporarily out of the Chamber but who I am sure will be back in a moment.
	Liverpool City Council has consulted widely and has twice voted by massive majorities to proceed with this Bill. It did so most recently on 26 January 2005 by 64 votes to eight—an eight-to-one majority. Surveys conducted across the city last October by John Dawson Associates show that more than 70 per cent of the city's population believe that all employees and customers should be protected by law from second-hand smoke. More than three-quarters of visitors to Liverpool say that they are bothered by smoking in enclosed public places.
	As we expected, these Bills have attracted some opposition, and the petitions reflect that. The promoters are willing to listen to suggestions to improve them that may be made in Committee and meet some of the concerns expressed by petitioners. Your Lordships would not expect the promoters to agree to amendments which would create loopholes and negate the Bill's purpose of significantly improving the health and welfare of the people of Liverpool and London.
	The Bills are modelled on the very successful legislation introduced in Ireland in 2004 and adopted by numerous authorities and countries across the world, including Norway, many states in the USA and, most recently, Italy, Sweden and Scotland.
	It may be suggested that, with government legislation imminent, there is no need for these private Bills. I can answer this in two ways. First, there is no certainty yet that the Government's Bill will provide the same comprehensive protection for all workers in the hospitality industry, particularly in the pubs which do not serve food and in members' clubs, as the Liverpool and London Bills will achieve. Indeed, were the White Paper proposals to be enacted, they would widen health inequalities and deny to some of the most lowly paid workers the protection from second-hand smoke which the great majority of employees will enjoy from the Government's Bill.
	The Government would also create commercial inequalities in the pub and licensing trade. It is striking that virtually every participant in the Government's consultation so far seems to be demanding that everyone should be treated similarly. If there are to be restrictions on smoking, they should apply to all.
	The Government's claim that up to 90 per cent of pubs would be smoke-free because they prepare and serve food certainly would not apply in Liverpool. Indeed, if we relied on the White Paper proposals, 59 per cent of the pubs in the city would be exempted because they do not serve food. In the poorest parts of the city, the figure rises to 80 per cent. Of the 20 per cent of pubs that serve food, nearly a third say that they would stop serving it if that meant that their customers could continue to smoke. Such widening of health inequalities cannot make sense.
	There is a second, perhaps even more compelling reason why these two Bills should proceed. Committee proceedings on private Bills are different from those on government Bills in both this House and in the other place. I understand that the Lord Chairman will briefly intervene after I have spoken to explain a little bit more about this rather unusual procedure for private Bills which we are following tonight and in Committee.
	Where there are petitions against the Bill, the promoters call evidence from expert witnesses, on oath, before a committee of five of your Lordships who are lucky enough to be selected. The case for these Bills will be introduced by a Queen's Counsel. The promoters are likely to seek evidence on, among other matters, the effects of second-hand smoke, the effect of ventilation and the experience in Ireland. The committee will be given the chance to consider the issues in an unprecedented level of detail with highly experienced witnesses. I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that, by subjecting these Bills to such intensive examination in Committee, we shall be assisting the Government's deliberations on their own Bill enormously. It will be an unusual, but extremely helpful, form of pre-legislative scrutiny.
	I should make clear that the promoters of the Bill are not flying a kite. They intend to see it through. Liverpool City Council's proposals have been long in gestation, and it is worth noting that the Bill was deposited last November, long before the Government made their manifesto commitment.
	Ten of the 19 petitions against this Bill come from licensees and their representative bodies. There are no petitions from bar workers or their representatives. They strongly support such legislation, not least because they are an occupational group at particular risk, as the latest report of the Government's Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health makes clear. The latest epidemiology, published in March in the British Medical Journal, suggests that premature deaths from exposure to second-hand smoke in the hospitality industry number more than one a week.
	Why Liverpool? Liverpool has a reputation as a pioneering public health city. The Liverpool Sanitary Act 1846 was the first piece of public health legislation in Britain, and the city created the first medical officer of health post. That private legislation was subsequently incorporated into the national Public Health Act 1848. There are numerous examples and precedents of local authorities introducing their own health-related legislation. More recently, in the 1940s and 1950s, many cities, including Liverpool, introduced their own clean air legislation. This was all consolidated in the first national Clean Air Act in 1956.
	The scale of death and disease in Liverpool caused directly by smoking is among the worst in the country. The proportion of the population in England which smokes is now 27 per cent; in Liverpool, it is 36 per cent. In some of the poorest wards of the city, the figure rises to 48 per cent. The result is that across Liverpool at least 1,000 people every year die from smoking-related illnesses, such as lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and all the other dreadful conditions that smoking can cause.
	In Liverpool, mortality from lung cancer is 109 per cent higher for women and 73 per cent higher for men than it is across England and Wales as a whole. Mortality in Liverpool from coronary heart disease is 23 per cent higher for women and 29 per cent higher for men than across England and Wales as a whole. There is a huge pride in Liverpool that the city has been chosen as the 2008 European Capital of Culture. It is not surprising that it now wishes to be rid of its current title as the lung cancer capital of England.
	Smoking is the greatest single contributor to health inequalities and to differences in life expectancies between social classes. To quote just one stark statistic, on average across the UK a man in social class 5—that is the poorest—has one chance in two of living to the age of 70. A man in social class 1 has two chances in three, and by far the largest factor in that difference is smoking.
	It is well established that the most powerful policy lever now available to cut smoking rates is to end smoking in workplaces and in all enclosed public spaces. That is a fact that the tobacco industry has long recognised. On the Internet, there is an internal document produced by the Philip Morris company in 1992, released as a consequence of litigation being carried out against the tobacco industry in the United States. The document said that,
	"total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly affects industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11 to 15 per cent less than average and quit at a rate that is 84 per cent higher than average . . . these restrictions are rapidly becoming more common . . . Milder workplace restrictions, such as smoking only in designated areas, have much less impact on quitting rates and very little effect on consumption".
	Those are the words from Philip Morris. So when your Lordships read the latest lobbying material from the Tobacco Advisory Council, I ask you to remember that that argument is not about liberty or freedom but about selling cigarettes.
	In his report to the Government on public health health issues, Sir Derek Wanless estimated that a complete end to smoking in all workplaces could cut smoking prevalence rates by up to 4 per cent. That would reduce the rate from more than one in four—the national average today—to close to one in five. The Liverpool Bill will be good news for the 70 per cent of smokers who repeatedly say that they want to quit, and good news for their families and friends. If the Bill is passed, many hundreds of lives will be saved—and that in itself is a powerful argument for this legislation.
	Of course, I accept that we cannot tell people what to do for their own good; much as we might want to encourage people not to smoke, we cannot force them to quit. That is why it is so important that we see an increase in the number of smoking cessation clinics and other aids to persuade people to give up smoking. Liverpool has pioneered those projects in the poorest part of the city and will do more after the Bill is passed. Meanwhile, we can properly require people not to smoke when and where their habit will damage the health of others—and that is what smoking does.
	On the basis of the figures contained in the report of the Government's own scientific committee on smoking and health, it is possible to estimate that around 100 premature deaths a year across Liverpool are caused by second-hand smoke. For every premature death, there will be many cases of serious illness. For example, a recent Department of Health survey for England shows that people who are exposed to other people's tobacco smoke for six or more hours a week were 50 per cent more likely than those who were not to develop asthma symptoms and breathlessness, coughing and wheezing.
	Asthma UK states that one in five people with asthma are prevented from using parts of their workplace where people smoke because of cigarette fumes. I am very pleased to see my noble friend Lord Simon in his place today—and I wish him a very happy birthday. As an asthma sufferer himself, he has impressed your Lordships on many occasions by telling us what hell it is to work in a building where smoking is permitted. He knows better than any of us that cigarette smoke is the second most common asthma trigger in the workplace.
	British researchers Peto and Doll have expressed the risk of developing lung cancer from passive smoking as being about 90 times higher than the risk of developing an asbestos-related cancer due to asbestos in buildings. It is astonishing that we have not up to now taken the risk of smoking more seriously.
	Smoking restrictions do not require intensive or costly enforcement. That has been the experience in Ireland, New York, on the London Underground, on other UK metro systems and on buses and trains. Such restrictions are generally observed by popular consensus, and the Liverpool Bill will be no different. It is alleged by some business and tobacco lobbyists that smoking bans will do serious economic damage, particularly in hospitality venues. Frankly, there is little objective evidence for that assertion. Indeed, in New York, employment and tax revenue from the hospitality sector have both risen sharply since the city's smoke-free ordinance came into effect. The picture is much the same in Ireland, where the dire prediction of the drinks trade that the hospitality industry would collapse have proved completely unfounded.
	As recently as 14 July, the Morning Advertiser reported the results of a survey that it had commissioned on a smoking ban in pubs. It said that smoke-free pubs would create a potential pool of new custom, with a quarter of the 2,350 people questioned saying that they would go to pubs more often if they were smoke-free.
	The economic costs to employers of smoking among the Liverpool workforce is approximately £28.5 million per annum, as a result of increased illness and reduced productivity. The Royal College of Physicians said only this week that an outright ban on smoking in public places would save the UK economy £4 billion. So cutting smoking rates would bring great economic benefits, and this Bill will make a real difference to the health of the people of Liverpool. I am proud to be its sponsor, and I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Faulkner of Worcester.)

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hope that it might be helpful to the House if I intervene briefly at this stage of these two Bills, because opposed private Bills do not come before your Lordships as frequently as they used to some time ago.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, although we are at the moment debating the Liverpool City Council (Prohibition of Smoking in Places of Work) Bill, the debate should take place on both Bills, including the London Local Authorities (Prohibition of Smoking in Places of Work) Bill. At the end of the debate, the Question will be put on the Liverpool Bill, and the Question on the London Bill will be taken, I hope, purely formally.
	As the noble Lord also said, there are a number of petitions—19 against the Liverpool Bill and 20 against the London Bill—a good many of which are in common. Most of those petitions are against the very principle of the Bill, and therefore there is not the slightest doubt that they will be not be withdrawn before the Bill goes to an opposed Bill committee. Therefore there will be every opportunity for those petitioners and the promoters of the Bill to argue their cases before an Opposed Private Bill Committee, which will take place after this.
	I hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading. The difference here is that giving a Second Reading to a private Bill does not give approval entirely to the principle of that Bill, unlike with a public Bill. It is perfectly possible for the Opposed Private Bill Committee to throw the Bill out in its entirety or to amend the Bill, or whatever. Then the Bill must come back to the House for a Third Reading, at which time it is also possible for the House to reject the Bill on a Division.
	I am hoping that your Lordships will not reject the Bill at Second Reading. I should point out that the last time that that happened was nearly 70 years ago, in 1937, and it is not our practice to do that now. If there are any further questions on procedure, I shall be happy to try to answer them. I shall be here for most of the debate, although not all, but I shall return for the end.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I rise to support the Second Reading of the London Local Authorities (Prohibition of Smoking in Places of Work) Bill. It is very similar in form to the Bill that has just been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. That is why they are being debated together. This Bill would give powers to each London borough to institute a ban on smoking in the workplace within the area of the individual borough.
	The London Bill is being promoted by the Association of London Government on behalf of the majority of London boroughs. The association, the umbrella body that acts as a unified voice for the London boroughs and the Corporation of London, has a long history of promoting private Bills on a consensual basis on behalf of all the boroughs. Your Lordships will know that that is sometimes a difficult feat, but one that the boroughs see as being in the interests of Londoners. The Bill represents a compromise between differing approaches.
	Some boroughs may be more enthusiastic about the early introduction of such a ban in their local area than others. Indeed, since the introduction of the Bill, three boroughs have decided to discontinue their participation; namely, Bromley, Havering and Kensington and Chelsea. That also explains why the Bill is adoptive. That means that it will come into effect, if the Bill as a whole is enacted, only when each borough passes a motion in full council to bring the Act into local effect. That will give each borough the time to reflect and consider the views of local residents. That is why the boroughs are joining together in a desire to see the issues debated and to see the case for a complete ban examined by your Lordships in detail, on the evidence, at the Select Committee stage. I hope that your Lordships will allow the examination of that case to happen by agreeing to a Second Reading today.
	The issue deserves the full attention of your Lordships in Select Committee and at later stages for the following reasons. A recent investigation by SmokeFree London found that in the capital in 2001 an estimated 10,500 Londoners aged 35 or over died as a result of smoking. That amounts to one death an hour. In 2001, in London, it was also estimated that diseases caused by smoking accounted for 46,000 hospital admissions, and 1.7 million GP consultations were associated with smoking. Around 3,400 people died in 2001 in London from respiratory diseases due to smoking. A further 2,200 died due to chronic obstructive lung diseases. Smoking is one of the biggest health issues that we face, and that is why London and Liverpool are seeking the new powers. I believe that in the future—I hope sooner rather than later—we shall wonder to ourselves why we ever allowed smoking in places of work.
	London and Liverpool have also been working together to collaborate on the drafting of the Bills. They are both based largely on the Irish legislative precedent. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has already highlighted the main points of the proposed statutory approach, and I shall not therefore trouble your Lordships with undue repetition. However, the most important point that he raised, which I shall reiterate here, is that there is no satisfactory way to eliminate the risks of second-hand smoke in enclosed public places short of ending smoking in those places. The medical evidence of the dangers of secondary smoke, whatever others might say, is incontrovertible and comprehensive.
	I shall refer briefly to the latest report of the Government's own Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, which consists of 15 of the most eminent medical experts in the country. Its report was published with the White Paper on public health. The committee reported that exposure to second-hand smoke increased the risk of contracting lung cancer and heart disease, in both cases by about a quarter. It described second-hand smoke as,
	"a substantial public health hazard".
	Of course, not everyone accepts the evidence. Take British American Tobacco, for example. Its last annual report stated that,
	"there is no convincing evidence that environmental tobacco smoke exposure genuinely increases the risk of non-smokers developing lung cancer or heart disease".
	Your Lordships will remember that the company spent years and many millions of pounds denying first that smoking killed, and then, when it had lost that argument, that nicotine was addictive. FOREST has challenged the Chief Medical Officer to prove claims regarding passive smoking. Needless to say, the promoters of both the London and Liverpool Bills intend to adduce that evidence in the Select Committee, if your Lordships agree to the Second Reading today. I suggest to the supporters of FOREST that if they believe in evidence-based decisions, the Select Committee would be an excellent place for that to happen.
	I turn briefly to one of the myths associated with the issue: the merits or otherwise of ventilation. Despite the best endeavours of the tobacco industry to promote ventilation as a solution to the problem, there is as yet no ventilation system that would be fully effective that would not also be entirely disproportionate. For example, the atmospheric physicist, James Repace, has stated that truly effective ventilation systems would require air-recycling rates of tornado-like force. It might be worth the absurd expense of installing such a system—assuming that one could ever be created or found—just to watch some of the opponents of action against second-hand smoke trying to light up a cigarette while it was in operation, but I shall not recommend that, as I believe in an evidence-based approach and we might not achieve that.
	Some opponents of the Bill have also suggested that new legislation is not required because responsible employers will act on their own initiative. Many employers in London have already done so and deserve public credit and support. However, many have not, and the London councils need to be equipped to take action where action is necessary in relation to the health of local residents and people who work in the boroughs.
	There is an odd fact associated with the debate, and that is that when opinion polls are carried out a large majority favours the banning of smoking in the workplace, but a rather smaller majority is in favour of banning smoking in pubs, restaurants and clubs. We are quite prepared to affect the health of others in our leisure, but of course, those are places of work too, and there is no reason why the health of the office worker should be given a higher premium than the health of a bar or restaurant worker.
	I shall also give no ground to the argument that people can choose to work in smoke-ridden atmospheres and that if they do not they should find another job. That is like arguing that we do not need a minimum wage because people can always get a higher-paid job. That ignores the realities of working people's situations.
	Studies in California before the state passed its legislation on the issue showed that the level of second-hand smoke in restaurants that permitted smoking was commonly around 200 per cent higher than in offices that permitted smoking, and that the level in bars was up to 600 per cent higher. Research in seven European countries, published earlier this year, showed that in some nightclubs, for example, customers would routinely inhale more second-hand smoke in four hours than they would in a month living with a smoking partner.
	I touch briefly on the claim by opponents of smoking restrictions that ending smoking at work will simply increase smoking in the home and possibly around children. Your Lordships will know of my commitment to children's issues. A series of Parliamentary Questions recently tabled in the other place revealed that the Government knew of no research to justify that assertion. It seems to be the political equivalent of an urban myth.
	Ending smoking in all workplaces, accompanied by publicity about the damage done by second-hand smoke, will not in fact increase smoking at home. On the contrary, it encourages many smokers to quit. In Ireland, for example, cigarette sales fell by 16 per cent after smoke-free legislation came into effect. Moreover, such a law increases public understanding of the risks of second-hand smoke and therefore discourages irresponsible smoking around children. Finally, it helps to prevent smoking from being seen as a normal, or even desirable, adult activity, and therefore removes a major incentive for young people to begin smoking—another huge problem in our society.
	There are some further points that I should address. The promoters of the Bill can see arguments for some very limited exemptions in public places that also have a residential purpose—for example, for long-stay patients in hospitals and care homes, which is a subject I have an interest in. However, the Royal College of Physicians in its document Going Smoke-free suggests that that should be on a case-by-case basis. No doubt that point could be addressed in detail in the Select Committee.
	There is also a novel form of objection from London theatres, who fear that not being able to smoke real cigarettes on stage will damage their ability to represent smoking in plays. Of course, one might argue that not being able to use real guns in the theatre does not mean that such things cannot be portrayed—it is called "acting"—but nevertheless the promoters have listened to those concerns. That matter could also be addressed in Committee and, indeed, if people wished, an exemption could be proposed.
	The Bill would protect non-smokers from the serious risks of inhaling other people's smoke at work and in enclosed public places. It is supported by all the major health charities, including the British Heart Foundation, the British Lung Foundation and the Royal Colleges of Nursing and Midwifery and many others. It would particularly protect employees in the hospitality industry and others at most risk, including children. It would sharply cut the number of smokers throughout London and save hundreds of lives every year as a result. It would be a great step forward for public health in London.
	I also have a personal agenda. Both my parents were smokers. My father died from cancer, and my mother suffocated from emphysema. My sister and I both have respiratory problems caused by our childhood environment. Our parents were loving people; had they known then what we know now they would have given up. Despite my personal experience, I believe that the evidence should be considered in the committee as evidence. I am proud to sponsor the London Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, noble Lords will have noted that it has taken 27 minutes to propose two private Bills, which we are told are almost identical. That in itself is a sad reflection on the way in which these two Bills are being presented to your Lordships' House.
	The main content of my speech will be as much on procedure as matters to do with smoking, although I will use one or two facts as opposed to allegations. Your Lordships should know that I tried to persuade the promoter of the Liverpool Bill—who I think is the senior promoter of the two Bills, if I may put it that way—that it would be more appropriate to deal with the two Bills after Her Majesty's Government's consultation, which ends on 5 September. It seems to me that part of the role of your Lordships' House is not to duplicate consultation. Certainly, we know from manifesto commitments and from the Queen's Speech that we are promised a Bill from the Government. Your Lordships' time is, in my judgment, precious, and it should not be used to debate issues that Her Majesty's Government are debating almost at the same time. Sadly, my words were not sufficient to persuade the noble Lord who is promoting the Liverpool Bill.
	The Chairman of Committees has encouraged us to give the two Bills a Second Reading. Indeed, the noble Lord is quite right that 1937 was the last time that we had a vote on such private Bills—on the North Devon Water Bill and the North Devon Electric Power Bill. I, for one, would not wish to interfere with the precedents of your Lordships' House, so if that is the normal procedure, that is acceptable to me—except I shall deploy some arguments that may persuade the promoters to withdraw their Bills.
	First, as far as I can see, and as far as those noble Lords who have studied the Bill can see, the Bills are virtually identical to the Government's proposed Bill in their consultation paper. Furthermore, we know from the Queen's Speech that the Government are bringing forward a Bill. They have affirmed numerous times that they are confident and strong on that. This is not one of those wishy-washy Bills that may or may not happen—we know that it is coming. In my judgment, the two Bills are superfluous.
	We also know that the consultation that the Government are undertaking contains an element about the risks, likely benefits and costs of enabling local authorities to make their own legislation on smoking. It is not as though the Government have ignored the evidence produced by local authorities. The Government are proposing that in their consultation, which is taking place at this very moment. Somewhere people may be discussing this in a pub—with or without smoking—or in some of the local authorities that meet of an evening.
	The promoters of the two Bills are stated to have undertaken extensive public consultation, but upon investigation it is pretty thin. It is nowhere near as extensive as Her Majesty's Government are doing, and doing correctly. They should be praised for the depth at which they are undertaking it. So the proposition that the two Bills—the Liverpool Bill and the greater London area Bill—have had extensive consultation does not stand up to examination.
	What would happen if the Bills were agreed by your Lordships' House? It would result in a confused system up and down the country because some local authorities might make their own legislation and that may not be the same as the next-door local authority. The promoters are correct in saying that it would affect the hospitality industry more than any other industry other than pubs and clubs. That is an important industry and we cannot ignore its views—we would be wrong to do so. Clearly, the hospitality industry feels that if there is to be change it should be universal change, which is basically what Her Majesty's Government are proposing in their consultation.
	We do not know the costs. It is all very well in life to promote this, that and the other as wonderful ideas, but costs are involved in any of these things. I shiver when I hear some eminent QCs, some of whom are in this House. They know better than I do how many thousands of pounds they earn in a day. All I know is that the local authority bills will come back on council tax payers. Have they been consulted? I do not hear either of the promoters confirming that all council tax payers have been consulted. I am a council tax payer in Westminster; we have not been consulted. I can tell noble Lords that that is the position.
	Frankly, we know that there are 19 or 20 petitioners. Those petitioners are not the British major tobacco manufacturing companies; they are representatives of restaurateurs, individual restaurateurs, pubs and licensees—those sorts of people. They are not equipped with huge sums of money with which to compete with these eminent QCs funded by council tax payers to promote two Bills alongside an existing government Bill.
	Then I hear from the noble Baroness this evening that three of the London boroughs have pulled out already. Before your Lordships' House has even had a chance to debate the issue, three have pulled out. It is not three, is it? It is four actually. I am not accusing the noble Baroness of misleading the House, but she must know that Westminster City Council has stated:
	"This Council notes the desire of the Association of London Government to promote private legislation that would allow London councils to implement a local ban on smoking in public places; and that the City of Westminster has been asked to act as parliamentary agent for this Bill as it has done for all previous London Local Authority Bills.
	The Council recognises the potential for public confusion as to its stance on this issue given that its name is on the face of the Bill.
	To avoid any potential confusion, the Council agrees that, notwithstanding its support for the local health priority around smoking cessation, in the event of the Bill achieving Royal Assent in the next Parliament, there is no intention to apply a public smoking ban in Westminster".
	So that is four which have pulled out. One begins to wonder, especially with these eminent QCs at a vast cost to council tax payers, whether other local authorities will also pull out. Far from a common front, we have four major boroughs—Bromley, Kensington, Havering and Westminster—all pulling out. They will not take part. Frankly, they have put a hole in the Bill.
	As I understand it, regardless of political persuasion, a government are pretty neutral on private Bills until such time as they decide whether to legislate. It seems to me incredible that we could have a government Bill starting its life—presumably in the other place—while alongside it we are sitting in a Select Committee listening to identical evidence and debating the same issues. That does not mean that the issues are not important; of course they are. But the right place for that debate is, initially, in the other place on a government Bill before it comes here.
	For those councils that proceed, the cost should be referred to the district auditor, because it is an abuse of council tax payers' money that those resources are funding two Bills running at the same time as a government Bill. That is not the least bit acceptable to any council tax payer.
	Great play was made by the noble Baroness about workplace smoking. She knows as well as I do that smoking is now allowed in only about 8 per cent of workplaces. That does not represent a huge proportion of people at work. The balance has been reducing and, I expect, will continue to reduce. So I question whether the priority should lie in the workplace. Only 8 per cent is left. Even the Health and Safety Commission, which has not changed its view, stated in 1999:
	"We believe there is already sufficient health, safety and welfare law that can be applied to passive smoking".
	So those are not my words.
	The argument should now concentrate on pubs and bars. Some chains—Wetherspoons, for example—have already stated that they will ban all smoking. That is their judgment; that is fine. Others may make a different judgment. I suspect that what people want is a recognition that pubs are a little different from ordinary workplaces. What do the public want? I have a few figures as well. I will not produce too many, but the two most relevant ones are those from the Government—we believe government statistics, do we not? These were supplied on 7 July—this month. Then, 68 per cent were not in favour of a total ban on smoking in pubs and bars; 31 per cent were. Those are the government statistics on the public's view.
	Great play is made about those who work in pubs and bars; it was made in our more recent debate. A recent survey at the end of June by AIR stated that 89 per cent of those surveyed among bar staff and licensees, the majority of whom were bar staff, said that smoking should be allowed in pubs; 70 per cent were happy to work there; 91 per cent thought that ventilation could be improved; and 71 per cent thought that it should be left to the owners to decide. Those figures seem conclusive evidence that this is a difficult area that should be dealt with with sensitivity.
	I say in conclusion that I shall not comment on the medical side, because I am not qualified to speak on it, but I know that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will contribute. I finish by saying that the new alcohol licensing laws in Westminster are in chaos because that legislation was rushed. Rightly, the Government are consulting in depth. That is good. These two Bills mirror government legislation. There has not been adequate consultation. They are causing considerable worry to those who have petitioned, most of whom run smallish businesses. The public does not want such draconian laws as proposed in these two Bills. They interfere with the Government's consultation. Above all, I submit that they are a waste of your Lordships' time when we can expect a Bill from the other place pretty soon after we are back.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, as the House will recall, I suggested at the conclusion of Starred Questions today that if we were to finish in time for 11 o'clock, which is an hour past our advisory time—we need to finish at 11 o'clock because of the rules of the House relating to the staff tomorrow—the House would need to agree to a six-minute time for Back-Bench speeches. The last contribution took 14 minutes. I need hardly tell the House that, should the other speeches follow at that length, it would take us until about midnight, in my rough paper calculations.
	Of course, we are a self-regulating House. I can only say that when I advised a limit of six minutes, which is all that it is in my power to do, it seemed to be responded to nearly unanimously. At least, no one leapt up then and objected. So I urge the House in its fine tradition of self-regulation to try to stick to six minutes, otherwise we will really be causing difficulties.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I will endeavour to meet the challenge laid down by the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms by being extremely brief.
	My first point concerns procedure. Many of us know that the original intention was that these Bills would be debated in March. It was not the fault of either London or Liverpool that they are now being debated in July. The reason flowed from the general election and the delays in legislation that necessarily followed from that.
	Secondly, I listened closely to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and fundamentally disagree with him. That fundamental disagreement is precisely because I want to encourage local authority initiative and local authority pilot schemes. I want many more than we currently have. There is a great deal to be said for encouraging local authorities to experiment, especially in controversial areas, to see how it works out. It is the most effective form of consultation to try something in practice and then legislate when one knows the result of those experiments. So I do not for one moment criticise Liverpool or London for floating these Bills now, even though a government Bill is proposed later.
	Thirdly, it is appropriate that the future European City of Culture, Liverpool, with which I am proudly associated, having been at one time Member of Parliament for Crosby, should be pursuing its renaissance by trying to bring in a far-reaching public health measure. London is now, delightfully, about to become the city of the Olympics in 2012. Again, what could be more appropriate for the world's sporting community than to see a city that has decided to get rid of smoking in public places? That is a very appropriate concomitant to a sporting occasion.
	Finally, I turn briefly to the content of the Bill. There is a sharp distinction between the White Paper and, as far we know, what the Government are currently proposing and the London and Liverpool Bills, which is two substantial exemptions. The first is private member's clubs; the second is pubs that do not serve food.
	Many others will be more knowledgeable than I am about private members' clubs; I have never been a great club member, so I will leave that discussion to other Members far better placed than I to contribute to it. However, I want to say something briefly about pubs that do not serve food, given that there is already an indication in the Government's consultation papers that they might allow certain sorts of food in pubs otherwise excluded from smoking. I leave that on one side, although it is a slippery slope. It could quickly move towards certain kinds of food being served, and there is a much bigger consideration.
	We know that, as a country, we are faced with an extremely serious problem of binge-drinking among young people. Pubs that do not serve food are likely to be much more popular with the binge-drinking community than pubs that do. For one thing, the whole clientele is different; for another, the emphasis is on drinking—drinking fast and a great deal—and not on an evening out with a nice glass of wine with a supper or dinner. There are great dangers in subjecting that section of our community, almost all of them young people—teenagers and young 20s—to a smoke-filled room. They are the most vulnerable, the least able to realise the risks, and the most likely to suffer throughout the rest of their lives from running those risks. The argument for the exemption falls to the ground at that first stage.
	I wish the Liverpool and London authorities well. I am not in the least surprised that there is some opposition; there is bound to be on a controversial matter such as this. A pilot scheme in both cities is appropriate, and I hope very much that the House will give not only a Second Reading but a fair wind to the Bills as they go through. If at the same time they are a blow for the autonomy and independence of local government, that gives them a double argument in their favour.

Lord Stratford: My Lords, may I say what a great pleasure it is to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Williams? As she was speaking, I remembered that I never really thanked her properly for coming to speak in my parliamentary campaign in Watford in 1979. Regrettably, that did not do me any good, but at least I perished in good company.
	During my 22 years in the other place, I made around 1,400 speeches and interventions, but none of them presented me with the sort of problems that I face today making my first speech in your Lordships' House. The first reason is that I simply never anticipated being here—neither, I suspect, did a fair number of your Lordships expect to see me here. Secondly, I am finding the inherent politeness of this place quite destabilising. Having come from a House where politeness is about as rare as an orderly queue at a London bus stop, the culture shock on entering your Lordships' House has been profound. Indeed, such relentless politeness is not merely destabilising, but positively exhausting.
	The reality of all this came home to me during the debate on the Speakership last week, when I finally realised that I had raised my last point of order, spurious or otherwise, and that my days of political hooliganism were destined to become just fond memories. Of course I might not survive the transition from political pugilist to polite Peer, but I will give it my best shot and see who cracks first.
	Before turning to the Bills to ban smoking in places of work, I record my grateful thanks to my two noble friends who supported me when I was introduced to your Lordships' House on 4 July. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, represent two areas of interest that I hope to pursue in this House; namely, the arts and animal welfare. If a third supporter had been allowed, I would have chosen the noble Lord, Lord Attenborough, with whom I share a passion for football and, in particular, a divorce-threatening love of Chelsea Football Club, where he is of course our distinguished life vice-president.
	I turn now to the Second Reading of the London Bill. I give it my strongest possible support. I do so not because I am overly bothered about what people do to themselves, whether it is smoking, drinking or taking drugs, but because those habits impinge on others. If people wish to smoke in the face of all the overwhelming evidence, it is their problem. Unfortunately, it soon becomes my problem and a problem for others who find themselves affected by that vile, unhealthy and anti-social habit.
	However, I readily confess to not always having thought that way. In my younger days, smoking was naively synonymous with pleasure. I well remember those Christmas and Boxing Day matches at Chelsea, where it seemed to me that the entire crowd was wearing brand new yellow knitted gloves and smoking Wills's Whiffs in a fuggy atmosphere of shared good will and Christmas cheer. Of course, it never occurred to any of us at the time that we were probably slowly killing each other. Indeed, my dear old dad, who introduced me to Chelsea all those years ago, died of cancer undoubtedly caused by smoking.
	I must also tell your Lordships that I could have been a serious athlete, only to have my promise cut short when I discovered Woodbines and women. Thankfully I have long since given up the former, and the latter have long since given up on me—except, of course, for the lovely Lady Stratford, who for reasons beyond my comprehension still tolerates my presence. But neither Lady Stratford nor myself is ready to show a similar tolerance for smoking in public places. As I said earlier, that is nothing to do with stopping people pursuing their own habits, however damaging they might be to their own health. However, it is virtually impossible to prevent that habit affecting the health and well-being of those who either do not smoke or do not wish to smoke in public places.
	I read the submission from the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association carefully, but I remain unmoved. The TMA made much of allowing smoking in designated areas and in separate rooms, but unless those areas are effectively hermetically sealed and smokers defumigated before they re-emerge, others will be affected. Personally, I do not want my space violated by smokers' fumes or their smell, both of which are most unpleasant.
	Equally, it is wrong to expect those who work in clubs, bars, pubs and restaurants to endure other people's smoking habits. Again, the TMA made much of the alleged willingness of staff to work in such smoky atmospheres, but how realistic is that? Many jobs in those places are casual, relatively low paid, and undertaken by workers who often have no great choice they can exercise. "Take it or leave it" is not much of an option.
	I well remember—my noble friend Lord Faulkner reminded the House of it—the fuss made by the cigarette industry when the bans on smoking on public transport were introduced in this country. Now those bans are well observed and unexceptional. Even in the Irish Republic, the smoking ban in public houses went ahead successfully, despite the reservations and warnings of the police, the tobacco industry and the breweries. Speaking as an Irishman—not many people know that—I say that if a smoking ban can work in Dublin pubs, to be sure, it can work effectively in London. I support both Bills.

Lord Geddes: My Lords, it is, indeed, a pleasure and a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stratford, and to congratulate him on behalf of the whole House on an extremely witty, but, dare I say, not totally uncontroversial maiden speech.
	In another life, the public perception of the noble Lord was, perhaps, as the leader of the Greater London Council for two years and/or as an eminent Minister for Sport. When I looked at the list of speakers and I saw that I was following the noble Lord, Lord Stratford, I thought, "Lord Stratford . . . Lord Stratford? . . . Ah, Lord Stratford! I wonder why he took that title?". Then I thought about sports Ministers and I wondered—dare I say it—whether he had an inside track to the 2012 Olympics.
	Perhaps a lesser known but longer-lasting perception of the noble Lord—at least to date—is that of a man who is highly knowledgeable in and a great admirer of the arts. He was a long-time chairman of the Works of Art Committee in another place. I am advised on good authority that the noble Lord instigated the website on the considerable quantity and quality of that art in another place, thereby greatly increasing public access to it. If only for that—of course, it is not only for that reason—the noble Lord is to be congratulated most warmly. Although I do not believe that I shall agree with him that often, I genuinely hope that we will hear from him often in this House.
	I declare an interest as a loyal member of the Lords and Commons Pipe and Cigar Smokers' Club, whose tie I am proud to wear this evening. My noble friend Lord Naseby has done the House a great service, because I have now crossed out the first four items to which I intended refer. However, I should mention a further effect of the Private Bills that I do not think he mentioned: they could have serious effects on competition, as a result of different provisions applying to businesses in adjacent or nearby local authority areas. In all other respects, I support what he said. The Government are bringing forward their Bill, and we should wait for that Bill, following the consultation.
	I wish to ask the Minister about one point of detail, which is illustrative of the Bill. I do not intend to be facetious. Clause 4(2) states that a "place of work" is described, among other things, as a "vehicle". That seems fine. Then, Clause 5 states that,
	"Subject to subsection (2) below"—
	to which I shall refer—
	"smoking is prohibited in places of work"—
	namely, vehicles—assuming that you work in a vehicle, in a borough. The clause continues:
	"This section shall not apply to a place"—
	namely, a vehicle—
	"or a part of a place"—
	still, namely, a part of a vehicle—
	"that is wholly uncovered by any roof, ceiling or canopy, whether fixed or movable".
	I hope that the Minister will not accuse me of being facetious, but if a Bill is to mean what it states, and your place of work is in a car, presumably you cannot smoke in a convertible car if the hood is up, but you can if the hood is down. That is my reading of the clause. The two Bills are riddled with such inconsistencies.
	I have spoken on the subject previously and noble Lords will know perfectly well where I stand. I object most strongly to what I describe as the nanny state. I object most strongly to the reduction in personal freedom. I shall conclude by repeating the view of the Health and Safety Commission. It stated that, in its view it was not currently reasonably practical under health, safety and welfare law to ban smoking in all such workplaces—restaurants, pubs and so on—in some cases, because it would not be commercially viable and in others because it would interfere with personal freedoms.
	I object most strongly to both Bills.

Lord Addington: My Lords, it falls to me to be the first person from these Benches to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Stratford, to our proceedings. He said that he was not sure about how we are so polite to each other. The best way to describe that is to say that he has now entered a fight with stilettos rather than clubs; feel for the rib and dig in. I am sure that he will quickly get the hang of it.
	This is one of those interesting debates in which already virtually everything that I thought about saying has been said in support of the Bills. It is a fact that ingesting second-hand or unused smoke from a cigarette still damages you, still smells bad, still irritates your eyes—and ultimately could kill. So what is the big difference? The difference is that you have not lit the cigarette and that you have not chosen to smoke.
	The case for the Bill is almost unanswerable. I can go on for a long time about how unacceptable it is for people to pass their habit, their drug addiction, on to somebody else. Remember, we are talking about an addiction.
	At the same time, I have a little sympathy for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. I am just of the age group that was affected by smoking. It was still the case that a cigarette was a social tool; it was something that you were expected to do. Indeed, when it came to chatting up girls, it was said that you must smoke because you could offer a cigarette or a light. Smoking was integrated into our social background. I have a little sympathy for those who have been told to do something, and then the norm they have been trained to accept—the drug habit they have acquired—is removed. They are now told that smoking is bad, and they should not do it because they are affecting other people.
	But that is the only ground that I can see for not giving full support to the Bills. Indeed, there are really no grounds; it is just an excuse for people to oppose the Bill. We are going through a process that allows detailed scrutiny of the Bill and these things can be argued out for ever. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Naseby—who is no longer in his seat—spoke about the vast cost of QCs. The vast cost to the NHS is a pretty handy come back to that. QCs will have to be paid only once or twice—I do not think we will get away with once—but if smoking continues we will pay for it through the tax bill for a long time.
	We must make sure these Bills go forward. They will really stop the ingestion of an addictive, damaging drug through smoking. I hope that this House will get the Bill through and will make sure it is a real kick to the Government to make sure that they follow it to its conclusion.

Lord Chan: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stratford, on his interesting maiden speech. I look forward to hearing from him on other occasions. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and my noble friend Lady Howarth on putting forward these Private Bills, which I support.
	I intend to focus on recent surveys of residents in Liverpool and the north-west, especially Wirral, to support a smoke-free Liverpool. Liverpool has one of the worst death rates from smoking-related diseases in the United Kingdom. More than 1,000 people die every year. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, Liverpool is the lung cancer capital of the United Kingdom according to public health observatories. It is not surprising that the city wants to get rid of that title.
	In a survey of 860 Liverpool residents that was published six months ago, in December 2004, 84 per cent, including 68 per cent of smokers, agreed or strongly agreed that all employees have the right to work in a smoke-free environment.
	This legislation will not have serious effects on the hospitality industry. In the Liverpool residents survey last December, three-quarters of smokers stated that if pubs and restaurants were smoke-free it would make no difference to their use of them, or that they would use them even more.
	This legislation will encourage tourism. In an October 2004 survey, more than half of the 300 national and international tourists interviewed said that their trip to Liverpool would have been more enjoyable if public places, including pubs and restaurants, had been smoke-free. Only 8 per cent of tourists said that they would have enjoyed their time less if Liverpool was smoke-free.
	Working among smokers can increase a person's risk of contracting lung cancer or heart disease by up to 30 per cent. In Liverpool, the dangers of passive smoking are taken seriously because of the work of the Roy Castle International Centre for Lung Cancer Research. Lost productivity and ill-health connected with smoking among the Liverpool workforce is estimated to cost employers approximately £28.5 million a year, according to a survey published in November 2003. That report found that smoking-related diseases cost the NHS in Liverpool nearly £13 million a year.
	Smoke-free Liverpool had the overwhelming support of the city council—both in October last year and in January this year. The campaign has the overwhelming support of Liverpool residents for total restrictions on smoking in workplaces, including shops, offices, factories, pubs, restaurants and clubs. Eight months after the city council recommended it, more workplaces are embracing total restrictions on smoking.
	Her Majesty's Government have made some plans to restrict smoking in workplaces by 2008, but Liverpool and other boroughs of Merseyside believe that their plans do not go far enough and are not moving quickly enough to protect our residents. In fact, the north-west of England wants the Government to go further than they plan.
	In the north-west a Big Smoke Debate survey was carried out between March and May 2004. A total of 14,222 responses to the questionnaire were received, of which one-fifth were from Merseyside. Results showed that eight out of 10 north-west residents supported legislation to ban smoking in public places; nine out of 10 said that they would prefer public places to be smoke-free; four out of five were bothered by tobacco smoke; and eight out of 10 wanted cafes, bars, restaurants and offices to become completely smoke-free.
	Of all lifestyle influences on cancer, smoking has by far the greatest impact on overall cancer incidence, according to the number of new cases, deaths and survival rates. Smoking impacts on many conditions other than cancers. One out of every seven deaths from heart disease is caused by smoking as are 83 per cent of deaths from chronic obstructive lung disease, including bronchitis. That includes more than 40,000 deaths from circulatory diseases each year. Smoking is also linked to asthma and osteoporosis, which is common among older women.
	Breathing in other people's smoke also kills because of the 40 known carcinogens in tobacco smoke. Immediate exposure could make your eyes sore and lead to a headache, dizziness, cough, sore throat and nausea. If you are asthmatic you may experience a decline in lung function. Just 30 minutes' exposure to other people's tobacco smoke can be enough to reduce blood flow through the heart. Those were the findings of a report in The Journal of the American Medical Association published in 2001.
	A smoke-free workplace, particularly a pub, will help people to give up smoking. Most smokers on Merseyside want to give up and they find it hard to give up when they go into a pub, have a few drinks and everybody else is smoking.
	Introducing the smoking ban will help people give up, as was seen in the Cherry Tree Shopping Centre in Wallasey, when it became smoke-free in December 2003. That has increased the number of shoppers. I trust that with all this evidence we will all support the Second Reading of these two Bills.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I also wish to offer my congratulations to Liverpool City Council and the London local authorities who are promoting the Bills. I wish to concentrate my remarks on Liverpool. I do so because a great deal of my working life involved going back and forth from Liverpool on an almost daily basis, but also—perhaps more important—because my late mother-in-law was born on a Liverpool tram and was granted the freedom of the city of Liverpool.
	Until the 1970s, it was thought that only active smokers were at risk from developing cancers of the lung, heart disease and other smoke-related illnesses, but over the past two decades extensive research has proved the contrary and has shown beyond any doubt, it seems to me, that passive smoking can cause the same diseases. When someone smokes, a spiral goes up in the air; 85 per cent of smoke from a cigarette goes up in the air. In that smoke there is a lethal cocktail of over 4,000 chemical compounds, more than 50 of which are known to cause cancer.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said, ventilation is not the answer. A study by the Health and Safety Authority in Ireland in 2002 determined that ventilation did not reduce levels of second-hand smoke compounds. A view that has been reinforced by the BMA is that there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. It cannot be stated too often: non-smokers are at risk, whether they work alongside smokers or whether they go into social environments such as pubs and restaurants.
	Women and children face the greatest risk. An estimated 17,000 under-fives are hospitalised each year as a result of passive smoking. Although a European directive entitles expectant and new mothers to be protected against known health risks in the workplace, three in 10 pregnant women in the United Kingdom are exposed to second-hand smoke at work. Babies born to women so exposed, whether at home or in the workplace, are lighter than those born to women not exposed. Second-hand smoke also increases the risk of giving birth prematurely. One study found that mothers exposed daily to second-hand smoke had a 23 per cent increased risk of having a premature birth.
	The White Paper Choosing Health, which has been discussed, proposes a ban on smoking in public places other than pubs that do not sell food—so-called wet pubs. That argument is illogical and completely undermines the White Paper's core aim of reducing inequality. That is not the case as it stands. I hope that the consultation taking place will result in a Bill that provides for a comprehensive smoke-free environment in the workplace. In the mean time, it is essential that we continue to pursue these Bills and provide the evidence behind the reasons for them.
	I wish to say why I think that the White Paper's position is illogical and to look at a real situation. Let us look at two women friends, living in Liverpool, who do not have any option about where to work because they must fit their jobs around childcare arrangements and other family responsibilities. They both take jobs in pubs for a few hours each day—one in a pub that serves food and the other in a wet pub, of which there are many, as my noble friend Lord Faulkner said. They both become pregnant. The health of the woman working in the pub that serves food will not be at risk, as she is protected, but her friend working in the wet pub is not protected. I see no fairness or logic in that argument. It is not acceptable for any worker in a non-food pub or private club to suffer the damaging effects of second-hand smoke.
	It cannot be stressed too often that it is not an anti-smoking campaign but a health and safety issue. It is about saving lives. Ending smoking in the workplace could save an estimated 5,000 lives each year. The prime concern must be the health consequences. We have also been told that there would be serious economic consequences for restaurateurs, pubs or whatever, but we must look at the other side of that equation. Smoking costs the NHS in Liverpool about £12.5 million each year. The economic cost to employers, as my noble friend said, works out at £28.5 million each year.
	Workers who smoke are more likely to be absent from work. Time is lost when workers take a smoke break in working hours. Moreover, employers who continue to allow smoking in the workplace risk claims of damages from employees exposed to second-hand smoke. I cite one case: a woman with asthma was awarded £17,000 in compensation against her former employer, who failed to stop smoking in her presence.
	In Ireland, publicans have recently reported no difficulty in implementation. Similarly, in Norway, the ban has had no negative impact. The same applies in other countries—including Malta, New Zealand and Italy, seven states in the USA, most of Canada and parts of Australia—that have introduced a complete ban.
	I support the observation of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who is not in her place, about the importance of initiatives taken by local authorities. In my area of Brighton and Hove, we are looking at coming up with a similar Bill. Although that is good news, it would be even more welcome if the Government came up with a very similar Bill.
	I know that we have all received briefings opposing the ban from organisations that have a vested interest. I am more interested in the briefings that I have received from the British Lung Foundation, all the major cancer organisations, the British Heart Foundation, the Stroke Association and the RCN. It is for them that I wish the Bill success.

Lord Monson: My Lords, will the noble Baroness kindly clarify one of her points? She argued that any exposure, however small, to other people's smoke was harmful. If that is the case, is not the logic of her argument to ban smoking in the street, the gardens of pubs and all other public spaces where large numbers of people congregate?

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, banning smoking everywhere is an impractical suggestion. As I said, this is not an anti-smoking campaign: it is a campaign about health and safety at work. That is what we are talking about.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the heat with which the noble Baroness delivered that response shows that, for some people anyway, there is an element of an anti-smoking campaign in this debate. Although I am a smoker, in preparing this speech I have tried to approach these Bills without the prejudice both ways that has been shown so far in this debate and to look at them in exactly the same way as I would any other Bill.
	I noted, first, that the 2004 Office for National Statistics report on smoking behaviour and attitudes stated that only 31 per cent of those surveyed thought that smoking should be banned in all pubs and bars, which are of course places of work. We were told earlier that that statistic is not viable in Liverpool and most London boroughs. Be that as it may, places of work are described in both Bills very widely. Clause 4 states that,
	"any place to which any person has access while at work",
	is considered such. But it does not include domestic premises. These days more and more people work from home. Some homes even have a room set aside for an office into which members of the public go from time to time. Is it logical that they are not covered? That is one of the lesser matters that the Select Committee, on which I am afraid we will have to waste valuable parliamentary time and resources, should examine.
	More seriously, the Bills state that a place of work includes any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft. As far as the last three are concerned, I assume that that means when they are attached to land, tied up in the ports of Liverpool or London, for example. I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, or perhaps the Minister, could enlighten me with their interpretation when they wind up.
	"Any vehicle" includes cars and lorries. How are drivers or other smoking occupants to know whether they are acting illegally? Very few will know whether they are in a smoking at work area. Will Liverpool city or London borough boundaries be marked in some way, as are the entrances to the London congestion charge area? The problem of whether you are in or out of the smoking at work area is especially acute in London because the purport of the London Bill is only to authorise borough councils to opt in to the proposed regime.
	It is particularly noteworthy that the City of Westminster, which historically promotes Greater London private Bills through Parliament and is promoting this one, has said that it has no intention to apply a public smoking ban in Westminster. I now hear that there are other boroughs of the same mind. But I would challenge any working driver to know the exact boundaries of Westminster or any other London borough. I wonder, too, how many would know the exact boundaries of Liverpool. Confusion would reign supreme.
	That is why, with the hospitality industry, I believe that the only solution to the problem of smoking at work is to have an Act of Parliament covering the whole country, which, of course, the Government have said that they would enact. They said it in the White Paper, Choosing Health, they said it during the general election campaign, and they said it again in the Queen's Speech. They are currently consulting on their proposals. I have no doubt that by this time next year a Bill will be well into its parliamentary passage.
	I have a couple of questions for the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. First, if these Bills become law, which I hope they will not, will they override the Government's Act? In other words, what action will the Government take? Will they override these private Acts or be overridden in the particular areas covered by them? Secondly, does she believe that level 5 on the standard scale is a proportionate fine? Does this crime really compare with, for example, the unlawful movement of special waste, which attracts the same level of fine?
	There are so many technical problems with these intemperate Bills that I am not in the least surprised that there are 19 petitions against the Liverpool Bill and 20 against the London Bill. Many make the same points and have been drafted by the same parliamentary agents. I was particularly struck by one of them from the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers and others on the Liverpool Bill. This states that:
	"The consultation for the Government White Papers enabled industry to participate fully in the process. In contrast, no such consultation has been undertaken by Liverpool City Council . . . nor was an opportunity afforded to discuss the success of the provisions voluntarily put in place following the consultations that preceded the two White Papers".
	This is no way to legislate, especially on a subject as sensitive as this which, as other noble Lords have said, is highly likely to damage the hospitality industry. The proper way to legislate in this area is to amend the government Bill when we get it, if indeed it needs amendment. I find these Bills a recipe for damaging trade and general confusion.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I look forward to hearing the humour of the noble Lord, Lord Stratford, in making his points. I am only sorry that he is not in his place.
	I congratulate the promoters of the Bill. I am president of ASH in Wales and a practising clinician there. I have not reintroduced my Smoking in Public Places (Wales) Bill as I have had assurances from the Secretary of State for Wales and Dr Brian Gibbons, the Minister for Health and Social Services in Wales, that the Health Improvement and Protection Bill, already referred to so often, will give Wales the powers and freedoms to implement a ban on smoking in public places as it sees fit.
	Wales has already held a very comprehensive consultation process chaired by Val Lloyd AM, and the committee has reported to the Assembly. It was a very thorough consultation process and I hope that England can learn from it. The Committee on Smoking in Public Places in Wales drew on much evidence and concluded that,
	"there is overwhelming evidence that environmental tobacco smoke is damaging to health. Ventilation equipment is not capable of removing the majority of health damaging particles from the atmosphere; there is no evidence that the introduction of a ban would have an overall negative impact on the economy; [and] while acknowledging the right of people to smoke a product that is obtainable legally, this right should be exercised responsibly. The majority of the public who do not smoke should be able to go to their place of work and other enclosed public places without risk to their health".
	A recent survey of the population of Wales shows what is now enormous support for an overall ban.
	Back in 1998, a report commissioned by the four UK health departments concluded that environmental tobacco smoke exposure is hazardous. The committee's update in 2004 reviewed all new evidence and concluded that knowledge of the hazardous nature of second-hand smoke has consolidated. It constitutes a serious public health risk. Many major studies have shown the adverse effects of the exposure of non-smokers to workplace environmental tobacco smoke. Time does not allow me to go through them, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, has already referred to the effect on pregnant women.
	There is also an increase in the risk of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 per cent, and an increased risk of coronary heart disease by 25 to 35 per cent. There is a significant reduction in the lung function of non-smokers exposed at work, and a higher prevalence of respiratory irritational symptoms. Concentrations of salivary cotinine found in exposed workers are associated with substantial involuntary risks for cancer and heart disease.
	The problem of environmental tobacco smoke is so widespread that the studies are of whole populations. By their very nature, such epidemiological studies need large populations. Taken together, their evidence is very strong. No one in the mainstream medical and scientific community doubts that there is a risk from environmental tobacco smoke.
	Children, pregnant women, people with existing cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease or asthma and other respiratory disorders are particularly vulnerable. Relatively small exposures of non-smokers to toxins in tobacco smoke seem to cause unexpectedly large increases in the risk of acute cardiovascular disease. The mechanism is probably through platelet aggregation and vasospasm, as is seen with nano-particle atmospheric pollution.
	Professor David Cohen modelled the economic and health impact of a ban on smoking in public places for Wales, which has a population of near 3 million. If that is extrapolated for London, with a population of 7 million, and Liverpool with almost half a million, the annual number of lives saved might be 1,012, with a further 150 to 450 resulting from a reduction in active smoking. The Irish model, of course, gives interesting data which completely support the proposals of both Bills.
	Why are these Bills quite so important? They are particularly important because the major benefit of stopping exposure to tobacco smoke at work is an overall reduction in smoking. I declare that I would like to see that as a secondary result.
	The Department of Health previously proposed that smoking would be allowed in bars that do not serve food. Like the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams of Crosby and Lady Gould of Potternewton, I have major concerns. Such bars will become havens for tobacco promotion. They will be decked out to attract the young—not the elderly, such as the likes of us. Youngsters, especially those who carry the genetic variant on a single gene, called CYP2A6, are particularly sensitive to the addictive potential of tobacco. These pubs will have loud music and alcohol and tobacco aplenty. It will be a great way to hook in the young—especially young girls, who already seem to smoke more than boys—and get them addicted to tobacco. That will create a long-term market.
	Wales will have an effective ban. The rest of the UK must also be able to have bans which are effective. That is why I support the Bills for these two important cities in England.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the city of Liverpool and the London local authorities on their initiative. It is excellent that Liverpool plans to be smoke-free by 2008, when it will be the European City of Culture. What a splendid initiative. It gives a totally new dimension to the meaning of culture.
	I congratulate my noble friend Lord Faulkner on introducing the Bill, and I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams: what could be more appropriate in preparing for the Olympic Games than this move to prohibit smoking in places of work? I hope that my noble friend the Minister will recognise the Bills as examples of civic pride and urban ambition to make these cities better places. Who would want to stand in the way of that?
	I would have thought that the Government would have welcomed the initiatives from London and Liverpool. Letting them make their own decisions should be seen as smart localism, not as causing confusion up and down the country, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.
	Other noble Lords have spoken of priorities. Should the priority be public health or individual freedom or avoiding economic damage? Let me briefly comment on each of the priorities.
	Starting with individual freedom, libertarians rightly make much of the freedom of individuals to choose for themselves. Indeed, the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association has helped the libertarians. It has published polling data which show that the majority of people do not want a complete ban on smoking in public places. Of course, we have to pay due regard to the will of people, but there are other considerations, many of which we have heard this evening. Governments and councils cannot live by polling alone. Public health and the economy are other considerations.
	On public health, the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, have explained how passive smoking is damaging to health. That is why I agree with my noble friend Lady Gould. The idea of smoking being permitted where food is not served because smoke is unpleasant to diners is illogical. If in other places of work one relaxes safety procedures according to the perceived pleasantness or unpleasantness and not according to the actual danger to health, there would be uproar and endless argument. Quite rightly, no workplace would put up with that.
	I turn to the question of economic damage. Fortunately the Government do not have to rely on the inevitably conflicting opinions of economists. They have the benefit of actual experience elsewhere. Other cities and countries have banned smoking in public places and, in some of those countries, sufficient time has elapsed for us to judge the economic effect. Other noble Lords have given details of what has happened in America, Ireland and elsewhere, and I do not intend to repeat that. However, it is interesting that, generally, in all those places the law is respected, as it is on trains and buses here. I do not believe that there need be much concern about economics.
	On balance, where should the decision lie? Like other noble Lords, I think it should be in public health. We have to make public health our priority. If the Minister has any doubts about putting health first, perhaps I may pray in aid the moving article in last Sunday's Observer by her colleague in government, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He writes about his friend Deborah Hutton and her book on cancer. The passage about Deborah Hutton's campaign to stop young people smoking, particularly girls, would convince anyone to support the Bill. That is why I support the Bills and hope that they will go forward to an opposed committee stage.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the House will be relieved to hear that I can be relatively brief, as my noble friends Lord Naseby and Lord Skelmersdale have already said much of what I wished to say. On 5 July, only a fortnight ago, we found ourselves discussing the London Local Authorities Bill. I am fascinated as to why the London local authorities did not get their act together and go with one London local authorities Bill.
	That Bill suffered from the same problem as these Bills. It has been overtaken by subsequent government legislation, which is even more positive than what is happening to these Bills. At the moment, they are subject only to future government legislation. The London Local Authorities Bill was introduced to the House in 2004, it was overtaken by government legislation earlier this year and parts of it will have to be completely excised from the Bill.
	These Bills are brought before us for discussion and we know we have a government White Paper. We have a Queen's Speech pledge to introduce legislation and that legislation is coming. I am looking forward to the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and to hearing how we should handle this dilemma.
	I would not go so far as to believe that it would be appropriate to oppose these Bills at this stage, but it would be perfectly reasonable to suggest that the business managers of the House will need to consider whether we should give time to these Bills when we know that government legislation is on its way. Private Bill Committees are very thorough and very time-consuming. They employ a lot of expertise and it means that the petitioners incur a great deal of cost as well. If that were made unnecessary, I am sure that there would be general rejoicing in the world outside.
	There is one other point that we should realise about the Bills. They will do nothing to reduce inequality, as has been pointed out already. Of course, there will be an element of equality in the areas where they are applied, but they will not cover the country. We know that a number of boroughs will not apply the London Bill, and that figure will probably rise. Frankly, my mind quails at the prospect of an endless series of local authority Bills, seriatim, going through the House, all petitioned against, as they almost certainly would be. Using the local authority route, it would be years before there was any solution to the problem.
	That is a powerful argument for at least not expediting the procedure on these Bills. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say so that we may know rather more about what the Government have in mind.

Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, in what has turned out to be rather a grim end-of-term scrap, I cheerfully declare my interest as a contented pipe smoker of many years' standing and a former chairman—now honorary president—of the smokers' defence group FOREST.
	Listening to these debates, it is tempting to resort to unparliamentary language about this gratuitous and time-wasting debate after Her Majesty's Government have announced a smoking ban. The obsessive, highly organised witch hunt against smokers—deaf to reasoned argument—reminds me of my early days as a campaigning economist. Then it was equally difficult to win a hearing for plain common sense on economic freedom.
	Other free spirits this evening have rebuffed the spiteful attack on the everyday civil rights of millions of smokers and tens of thousands of pubs, hotels and restaurants. My single purpose is to assert the commonsense implausibility that so-called passive smoking can actually kill non-smokers. After much diligent study, I have concluded that all this agitation is mere puffed-up propaganda to punish smokers for exercising a traditional freedom—at their own risk. My smoke may irritate the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, but it cannot kill him or anybody else.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I beg to differ—it can kill me.

Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I believe that it cannot kill the noble Viscount or anybody else. There is no evidence that it kills.

Viscount Simon: That is because I am still alive, my Lords.

Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, the proof of my case lies in the total failure of ceaseless well-funded research by multiplying anti-smoking lobbies, over 25 years and 80 reports, to find persuasive evidence of harm to others that is consistent or statistically significant. My exposé is set out in a recent monograph called Smoking out the Truth, which included a direct personal challenge to the CMO. His response, though courteous, was frankly pretty feeble.
	Consider the unconvincing methodology of all the research. It relies on questionnaires which seek to detect what they call the elevation of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. The method is to compare two matched samples. One is a control group of healthy non-smokers, such as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the other is made up of the cases of non-smoking wives with lung cancer who live with smokers. The test is almost as hilarious as the classic cartoon of a bobby who arrests someone in a pub because, in the words of the caption, "I thought, m'Lud, I could smell alcohol on his breath".
	With so-called passive smoking, there is no pretence of scientific measurement. The least whiff of tobacco smoke is sufficient proof of guilt. The aim of all this research is to establish a single statistic called relative risk which purports to measure the comparative long-term exposure to ETS of the two groups, the controls and the cases. In brief, a relative risk of 1.0 implies equal exposure to ETS of the two groups, whereas, let us say, 2.0 would imply a doubling of the hypothetical risk of cancer. One hundred per cent more of very little is still not very much.
	There are at least three ways in which this pseudo-research fails. First, reputable epidemiologists require a relative risk of at least two before they take any risk seriously, and some of them look for one of three or four. Secondly, answers to questions on lifetime exposure to ETS must always be wildly unreliable—a dubious mix of guesswork, vague recall, subjective impressions, exaggeration and plain untruths. Let us imagine trying to estimate, tabulate and calibrate such esoteric data in order to calculate a relative risk, with spurious precision to two decimal places, that ignores the wide range of "confidence intervals" which indicate statistical significance.
	Can any noble Lord present honestly say, even on a rough scale of one to 10, how much tobacco smoke was around his family home in his youth and ever since? Professor Robert Nilsson, a Swedish academic toxicologist, reckoned that typical domestic exposure might be equal to the effect of an individual smoking one or two cigarettes a year. Yet one of those earnest questionnaires on exposure actually asked the next of kin of a spouse who was dying of lung cancer how many months a year she left her windows open. How is that for cod science?
	If that were not enough to discredit the whole hocus-pocus, let us consider a third gaping flaw in this ramshackle methodology. Cancer is known to be a multi-factorial disease, which may be traced to diet, heredity, lifestyle, alcohol, urban location, car exhausts and so on. All such "confounders" are conveniently ignored in those crude health warnings on television and cigarette packets. Instead, all cancers are blamed on smoking. We heard some of that this evening in totally ridiculous, individual, personal, family examples.
	How scrupulously is all the research conducted and reported? Publication bias leads zealous researchers to seek big, eye-catching results. In today's political climate, researchers who claim a high relative risk of exposure to lung cancer will more easily attract headlines, publication and further research grants, as well as frequent mentions in your Lordships' House. From this arises the practice of "data dredging" or torturing the statistics until they confess the answer that you want.
	I turn finally to the report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health. After admitting ignorance of the numbers exposed to ETS, it puts relative risk at a piffling 1.2 or 1.3 and estimates that exposure could account for "several hundred" extra lung cancer deaths a year. Several hundred in population of 40 million is completely laughable. It is not to be taken at all seriously.
	I shall not dwell on the BMA press release last March which claimed that "second-hand smoke" kills more than 600 people every day. That is 200,000 people a year. This was later withdrawn as a clerical error, but it nicely indicates the feverish world in which the BMA's staff live their smoke-free lives.
	My emphatic judgment on passive smoking is: "Relax. There is absolutely nothing in it". The whole invention is nothing more than a stupendous confidence trick. I hereby nominate the victims of the spoof as ASBOs; that is, anti-smoking belief obsessives.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, following the introduction of my noble friend Lord Faulkner to this Bill, your Lordships will be expecting me to declare an interest as somebody who is severely asthmatic and who is allergic to numerous volatile chemicals and to tobacco smoke. This, I do.
	It has been proposed in the Public Health White Paper that most—I repeat, most—workplaces should be free of second-hand tobacco smoke. Not only does this not go far enough in protecting people from second-hand smoke, but it does not address the stated intention of reducing the rate of smoking, thereby contradicting the Government's public commitments to cut the number of smokers.
	While one can understand that guarded approach, does this mean that, when somebody succumbs to the effects of inhaling second-hand tobacco smoke and can no longer work, the Government will pay compensation or will have a leg to stand on when taken to court? That is what may, and probably will, happen at some time in the future, because it is widely acknowledged by the Government and others that the inhalation of second-hand tobacco smoke causes illness and death. Because of that acknowledgement, the door is left wide open for potential court actions to be pursued. That door has already been opened in the private sector—and I strongly suspect that there will be more such cases.
	It has been proven that second-hand tobacco smoke is a carcinogen, yet millions of workers are exposed with no protection whatever. But while people continue to smoke, they are burying their heads in the sand: every new scientific report on both smoking and inhaling second-hand tobacco smoke provides more and more evidence of the dangers present. There are those who, in their advancing years, say that they have smoked all their lives. That may well be, but they are the exception, as many others will have died prematurely from smoking tobacco products which, as established last year, contain numerous poisons. It would not surprise me if most if not all noble Lords here today knew somebody who had died prematurely from a tobacco-related disease.
	The benefits of prohibiting smoking in the workplace would be to reduce the number of smoking-related cases and, thereby, the financial pressure on the health service. Finland, which has included smoking restrictions in the workplace, has seen a 40 per cent reduction in the costs of benefits and a fall in the rates of hospital admissions and deaths. But we hear the tobacco industry claim that that will reduce takings in pubs and restaurants. Evidence taken from around the world, where bans are in force, proves the opposite, with many areas showing increased trade and numerous job creations.
	We hear that ventilation could be the answer to second-hand tobacco smoke inhalation, but even the tobacco industry hospitality programme admits that ventilation does not address the adverse health effects; no authoritative institution claims that it does. Other noble Lords have mentioned that matter. Indeed, data from California show that there is a growing awareness of the dangers of second-hand smoke even among smokers.
	Stratford Sanders, the spokesman for SmokeFree Australia, has commented on the Australian Capital Territory Government's decision to ban smoking in bars, clubs and restaurants with less than 25 per cent open air present. He said:
	"When you've got asbestos, do you say to the workers, 'Look, we know that every inhalation of asbestos is harmful to you, but we're going to allow it in any area where you've got 25 per cent open air'? You don't—you say the stuff is dangerous".
	The ACT Government have conceded that their partial ban is completely arbitrary and is not supported by scientific study.
	Contrary to the claims that a complete ban would lead to more smoking in the home, the current evidence is that smoke-free workplaces result in people giving up and thereby reducing the risk of second-hand smoke in the home. That of course would help the growing number of children with asthma who become ill when inhaling second-hand tobacco smoke. Of the 5.2 million people with asthma in the UK, 82 per cent—that is 4.3 million—have said that second-hand smoke makes their asthma worse. Often, it is the case that a small amount of second-hand tobacco smoke can trigger an instant attack and could prove fatal.
	My noble friend—and I call him friend—Lord Harris of High Cross will I am sure be very interested to learn that when I am on a motorway travelling at 70 miles per hour with my windows closed, I will have a minor asthma attack if somebody is smoking in another car; if my windows are open, I will have a major attack. That has been witnessed by other people.
	I am not alone in not being willing to take the risk of going anywhere that second-hand smoke may be present. One in five people with asthma feel excluded from parts of the workplace where people smoke. And, for those who think that smoking areas work, let me say that a smoking area could be defined as one where smokers are not present but their tobacco smoke is.
	All people at their place of work should be treated equally so why should workers be less protected because they happen to work in the hospitality sector when, in fact, these are the very people who are most vulnerable? These workers breathe in higher levels of smoke for longer duration than anyone else, resulting in greater risk of illness. Workers cannot necessarily choose where they work. Should they have to choose between their livelihood and their health? I think not.
	On a previous occasion my noble friend Lord Faulkner quoted King James I of England. I shall give another quotation by the same monarch:
	"Herein is not only a great vanity but a great contempt of God's good gifts, that the sweetness of mans' breath, being a gift of God, should be wilfully corrupted by this stinky smoke".
	I support these Bills in the hope that when they become enacted, they will prompt other towns, cities and the Government to acknowledge the dangers associated with the tobacco habit and the potential for court actions.

The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I should like to preface my remarks by offering my sincere congratulations to the City of Liverpool on being selected European Capital of Culture for 2008. I believe that its 800th birthday charter year will come up in 2007. So Liverpool has busy and exciting times ahead and I wish the city council and other bodies well.
	It is therefore with some sadness that I find myself unable to support the Bills before us today. I shall come to my reasons why in a moment but, before I do, I should like to declare an interest which was previously declared by my noble friend Lord Geddes, in that I am a member of the Lords and Commons Pipe and Cigar Smokers' Club.
	I recognise that the promoters and supporters of the Bills are principally concerned about passive smoking, but I believe that some of the figures bandied about in this context are, to put it bluntly, wildly alarmist and difficult, if not impossible, to prove. I am not saying that the problem does not exist, just that it is very difficult to quantify. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, has made this subject his speciality and I would not dream of adding anything to his contribution. However, on balance, I find myself in the camp of believing that our laws in this country must continue to protect the right of the individual to freedom of choice, which I consider to be a cornerstone of a free, democratic society.
	There is no doubt that these private Bills are controversial, as has already been said by other noble Lords. Nineteen petitions have been lodged against the Liverpool Bill and 20 against the London local authorities Bill. It is unusual for private Bills to be of such a controversial nature, and, whatever else, they will result in considerable financial costs being incurred, as my noble friend Lord Naseby pointed out, to say nothing of the heavy demand on that most precious of resources—parliamentary time.
	I believe the reality is that restaurateurs and licensees of other premises are entrepreneurs in their own right who should have the freedom to decide which market they wish to cater for and, provided they put in efficient ventilation and air purifying equipment and have designated smoking areas, they should be able to choose the smoking policy in their establishment. In some cases, they will have invested millions of pounds and it seems reasonable to me that they should be allowed to establish a smoking policy which best serves their business and their customers.
	Although I accept that in some cases it is not altogether easy for people to move from job to job, staff have a choice about where they work and do not have to work in smoking restaurants or bars if they do not want to. In any case, I believe that these Bills are too draconian in their approach. Clause 10 in Part 3 of the Bill allows for fixed penalty notices to be issued by an authorised officer or accredited person. That to me conjures up the vision of armies of smoke wardens patrolling premises—they are given wide powers of entry under the Bill—and dishing out fixed penalty tickets in a similar manner to parking wardens. I find it hard to think of anything more likely to cause civil unrest, particularly on a Saturday night.
	It would be far better in my view to have a voluntary code of practice, but if that is no longer possible I would prefer to see a Bill along the lines promulgated by the Government, possibly with some amendments, which I believe they propose to introduce to Parliament this autumn. As has already been said by other noble Lords, I wait with interest to hear what the Minister has to say on that later in the debate.
	Perhaps I should address my next question to the promoter of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. Can he explain the situation under Clause 4 of long-distance lorry drivers who wish to smoke in their cabs moving in and out of the areas that would become smoke-free under the legislation?
	Finally, I shall touch on the confusion that would be caused if the Bills were to receive Royal Assent. We would end up with one law for London and Liverpool and no change to the present law for the rest of the country. We live in an increasingly mobile society, and it seems to me that to have a law on smoking in Liverpool that would not apply to Warrington, Bootle, St Helens, Manchester or anywhere else in the country except London is almost absurd. The really extraordinary revelation came when the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, introduced the London Bill. She stated that Kensington and Chelsea, Bromley, Kent and Havering had opted out of the legislation. We have already been told in this debate that we should now add Westminster City Council to that list. Confused, my Lords? I certainly am.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, the Bills are both necessary and timely, and I am pleased to support my noble friend Lord Faulkner and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth.
	The case for legislation seems to me absolutely clear-cut. The impressive publication of the Royal College of Physicians that came out last week, Going Smoke-free—I have it in my hand—sets out all the reasons clearly. The arguments are cogently made. I commend the publication to your Lordships if you have not already read it, and especially perhaps to the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I suspect that it is just possible that even he would get his confidence dented a little. I express my interest as a past president of the Royal College of Physicians, although unfortunately I had nothing to do with the writing of the report.
	The Government have gone a long way down the route of banning advertisements and promoting smoking cessation, but there is rather more to be done. The measures proposed in the Bills would go a long way to improving the health of the population. The fact that smoking is harmful to those who indulge is now so well established that the surprise is that so many people still smoke. Smoking is not merely harmful; it is the most dangerous health hazard, way ahead of alcohol, obesity, overeating, driving dangerously, and acts of terrorism. They shrink into insignificance.
	The primary aim of the Bills is to reduce the danger of passive smoking by innocent bystanders who do not smoke. The evidence outlined so clearly in the Royal College of Physicians report is compelling. Those exposed to the smoke of others at home or at work have all the same damaging chemicals in their bloodstream as smokers. Even in so-called smoke-free areas in restaurants there is evidence that chemicals get into the blood. I quote from the report:
	"Smoke-free areas in pubs and restaurants reduced exposure only to levels that are still very high in relation to other workplaces".
	That is non-smoking workplaces. Of course they are present in smaller amounts, but they are there and they are damaging. Those passively exposed to smoke have a higher incidence of lung cancer and heart attacks. Tellingly, for example, if you are married to a smoker your risk increases the longer you live with them and the more that they smoke. There is a straight line relationship.
	It is estimated that about 500 deaths a year are attributable to smoke at work. The risk of lung cancer is 24 per cent higher in those exposed passively to smoke compared to the general population. The risk of ischaemic heart disease in those exposed is similar to that of those who smoke up to nine cigarettes. Those are all frightening but believable statistics.
	The bottom line is that the more that you are exposed to the smoke of others, the greater the harm. Regular exposure at home or at work is sufficient to cause significant ill health and shortening of life. All that should be enough to see the Bills enacted, but there are even more secondary reasons why they are worthwhile. There is good evidence that a ban on smoking in public places reduces the overall smoking rate in the population, which must be good.
	I am particularly concerned about the number of teenagers who smoke, apparently oblivious to the fact that they may be shortening their life by five or even 10 years and that they will suffer unpleasant ill health on the way. Of course, they like to live dangerously and show their contempt for elderly do-gooders like me, but the evidence points to the example of parents who smoke as a prime reason why they start. That must lend support to the value of any reduction in overall smoking rates.
	On top of all those reasons for the ban is the purely social one of having to put up with other people's smoke, which irritates the eyes and nose and makes you cough. That puts smoking in public places no higher than an anti-social act that interferes with the comfort of others—perhaps not by itself sufficient for new legislation, but certainly an added benefit gained by an Act designed to reduce the harm to health and life that we have heard about today. The evidence from Ireland is very encouraging, and I hope that we will soon follow.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I start by congratulating my old and unexpectedly noble friend Lord Stratford on his typically rebarbative maiden speech, wishing him a happy time in your Lordships' House, and hoping that he finds the burdens of politeness not too irksome as time goes on and he gets more used to us.
	I do not need to be convinced that legislation to ban smoking in public places is both desirable and necessary. Furthermore, I agree with nearly everything that has been said in support of the two Bills before us today. Unfortunately, despite my convictions, I must acquaint your Lordships with some consequences, which I hope are unintended, of the Bills that, if not addressed, would make it difficult for me to support them.
	I declare an interest as a former member of the board of the Society of London Theatre and a current member of the board of the Almeida Theatre, which is a member of both the Society of London Theatre and the Theatrical Management Association which, unfortunately for the purposes of this debate, shares an acronym with the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association—but there you go.
	The TMA and SOLT are both petitioners against the Bills, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, for whom I have enormous admiration. However, I suspect that she does not get out a lot, because if she did, she might have attended the theatre, where she would have discovered that when gunfire is required on stage, actors do not point two fingers at one another and shout, "Bang!", they use real firearms—under strict health and safety regulation. That is relevant to what I want to say.
	I invite your Lordships to consider the plays of Noel Coward and seeing them presented without the benefit of smoking jacket or cigarette holder, or to call to mind the variety of fine actors who, at different times, have brought the great Winston Churchill to life. Could they have done so successfully in the boiler suit without the cigar?
	Those of your Lordships who attend the theatre will have seen many remarkable stage settings. Can we imagine, say the streets of 19th century Paris in "Les Miserables", the wide savannah of "The Lion King" or Mrs Hedda Tesman's oppressive drawing room illuminated by prominently displayed signs declaring that smoking is prohibited? I think not. But there is a real danger that such undesirable things will come about if the Bills go forward unamended. Insufficient attention has yet been given, in my respectful view, by the promoters to understanding what conditions are necessary for the creation and presentation of authentic performance.
	For instance, Clause 4 of both Bills defines "place of work" in such a way as to include rehearsal rooms, stages, theatres and other indoor performance spaces. Clause 5 would have the effect of prohibiting smoking on stage during performances, and in rehearsals, whether in theatres or dedicated rehearsal spaces. Furthermore, the interpretation of "smoking product" in Clause 2 is drawn so broadly as to preclude the use of non-tobacco alternatives such as herbal cigarettes, which many performers already prefer to use where smoking is required by a text or a production style. As it happens, no one has yet come up with a satisfactory form of fake cigar but, even if some enterprising character were now to do so, his ingenuity would be of no use since the Bills as currently drafted prohibit even artificial smoking materials being used on stage or in rehearsal.
	Clause 6 of both Bills provides that, where smoking is prohibited under Clause 5, a sign has to be displayed indicating clearly to the public that smoking is prohibited, and also giving the name of a person to whom a complaint may be made by a member of the public who observes another person smoking. That would mean, presumably, that not only would a set depicting the consulting room at No. 221b Baker Street require a "no smoking" sign to be sited in full view of the audience, but an actor giving his all as Sherlock Holmes would be liable to have a complaint laid against him if he lit up his famous pipe.
	It is easy to score cheap points—I am afraid that I have tried to do so—by providing what may seem to be a reductio ad absurdum. It would also be misleading if I were not to acknowledge that the Bills' promoters looked at those issues earlier in the year, at least so far as the London Bill was concerned. However, the amendment offered at that time did not fully address the matters giving concern to SOLT and the TMA, and as I understand it no progress has been made since March in any event.
	The Bills as drafted give powers to the promoters both to inhibit the process of creating work for the stage and to compromise the integrity of performance. I cannot believe that that is any part of their intention. I submit that an exemption can and should be provided in the Bills to allow smoking in rehearsals and on stage where it is part of the action of a performance, subject as at present to sensible safety precautions being observed. Such an exemption would automatically banish the possibility of "no smoking" signs at Elsinore.
	I ask the Minister to tell the House what the Government's view is of the difficulties to which I have drawn attention. I also respectfully ask my noble friend and the noble Baroness, whose indefatigable efforts to get smoking banned in public places I support and greatly admire, to recognise that they may need to give further thought to the detail of the Bills. However dangerous and undesirable we now know smoking to be, it has been part of our culture and of other cultures for more than 400 years, and is embedded in much of our art. It is surely possible to preserve the excellent intentions of this proposed legislation without applying too heavy a hand to our history.

Lord Rea: My Lords, I strongly support the Bills, but I shall try to be extremely brief in explaining why they are important.
	The first reason is that the scientific knowledge of the damage to health caused by passive smoking or environmental tobacco smoke—ETS—is becoming increasingly clear. In fact, it is becoming crystal clear, as new peer-reviewed papers are published almost monthly. Many of them are cited in the report of the Royal College of Physicians mentioned by my noble friend Lord Turnberg. The studies that it describes are both epidemiological, measuring the effect on large populations, and laboratory-based, describing the pathological effects on individuals and their tissues.
	The list of unpleasant components of tobacco smoke includes, in the particulate phase, tar, which contains a number of carcinogens, as well as benzene, benzpyrene and nicotine. Perhaps that is why recent ex-smokers, when trying to give up their addiction, like to sit near smokers—in their slipstream. In the gas phase are found carbon monoxide, ammonia, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide, acrolein and many others. As the noble Lord, Lord Chan, said, 40 of those components are suspected carcinogens, and many have irritant properties. It is small wonder that the immediate effects of contact with environmental tobacco smoke include eye irritation, headache, cough, sore throat, dizziness and nausea. As we heard in the eloquent speech by my noble friend Lord Simon, asthmatic attacks are often precipitated in people who are prone to asthma.
	So, I must disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and tell him that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community now accept the validity of the studies that I have outlined. While the scientific evidence against smoking in enclosed public spaces is thus increasingly clear, certain members of the Government still hold the view that the public are not ready for a total ban. It is true that, although the great majority of the population are now non-smokers, many people have a lenient view towards smokers—many having been smokers themselves—and feel that the Government's present approach of allowing smoking in pubs with no food should be the next step.
	Some would go further and allow smoking rooms in all pubs and restaurants, or they believe, erroneously, that extractor fans are effective. What people with those beliefs forget is that staff working where smoking is allowed are condemned to inhale tobacco smoke while they serve customers. The Bills are expressly designed to protect those staff, who may be unaware of the dangers to which they are exposed, quite apart from being unable to find another job in a smoke-free workplace, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, described.
	Since the Bills were first due to come before us in March, I have had the privilege of visiting Ireland in early April. The total ban introduced in May last year had been in force for nearly a year. It has been even more successful than its architects envisaged, and polls show that it is now more popular than when it was first introduced. A key reason for its success was that the Ministry of Health and the Irish Government, as a whole, had a consistent tobacco policy and introduced a series of control measures over the past decade. At all stages, there was a national debate with good scientific information forming the basis of the dialogue, making full use of the media. There is no evidence that the measures had any effect on the profitability of the hospitality trade, which was on a slight downswing before the measures were introduced. If anything, there has subsequently been a change for the better, as my noble friend Lord Faulkner pointed out. Certainly, the pubs that I visited in Dublin were doing a roaring trade, and there was no sign of the civil unrest feared by the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool.
	Outside one of those establishments were two men and a woman who were smoking cigarettes. I suggested to them that perhaps they might be a little fed up with a law that banished them to the outdoors if they wished to smoke. They strongly denied that and said that it was a good law and that having to smoke outside the pub meant that they smoked less and saved money. The woman said that the only problem was that reducing smoking had led her to put on weight.
	I hope that the Bills will receive strong support from the Government. They will allow Liverpool and London to act as pilot projects, in effect, for the similar national measures that should follow in their footsteps—I hope sooner rather than later.

Lord Rosser: My Lords, I wish to express my support for the two Bills from Liverpool City Council and the London Local Authorities. Those contributions from noble Lords that have been dismissive of the impact of passive smoking seem to me to equate to the George Bush approach to the impact and causes of climate change. As has been said by a number of noble Lords, the evidence of the damaging effect of smoking on the health both of smokers and non-smokers is overwhelming.
	Last March the presidents of the Royal Colleges, in supporting the Liverpool City Council Bill, stated that passive smoking caused an estimated 1,000 deaths in adults each year. The Government's White Paper Choosing Health, published in November 2004, said that lung cancer, heart disease, asthma attacks and sudden infant death syndrome were conditions linked to second-hand smoke.
	The Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, whose report was published with the White Paper, indicated that non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke faced a 24 per cent increase risk of lung cancer and a 25 per cent increased risk of heart disease. It also found that bar workers were the occupational group who were most at risk from other people's smoke.
	I hope that the Minister will speak positively about these Bills when she replies. They go in the same direction that the Government are travelling and the fact that their destination may be another stop down the line towards better health and saving lives, and they may want to get there more quickly, is no justification for my noble friend being anything other than positive in her response. These Bills do not go in a direction that is significantly different from that of the Government, and they certainly do not go in the opposite direction.
	These Bills reflect what elected, accountable representatives of the people of Liverpool and the overwhelming majority of London boroughs are saying is wanted. If they have it wrong, and that is not the case, they will be the ones in the firing line, accountable to their electorates. The impact of the Bills over and above the Government's proposals will not extend beyond the London boroughs concerned and the city of Liverpool.
	While there are very good reasons for having policies over a great range of issues applied nationally, including the Government's policy on the issue of shifting the balance significantly in favour of smoke-free environments, there can be no reason for denying the additional powers to make variations in different localities that want them, where they do not challenge or thwart the basic direction of government policy and do not have an impact outside the locality or area concerned.
	Local authorities have powers that give some flexibility in their approach to reflect the needs of their area and the wishes of their constituents; for example, in planning, parking, the allocation of resources for education, the provision of leisure facilities, support for public transport, and, shortly, licensing applications. There seems no reason at all why the city of Liverpool and the London boroughs should not now be given the powers in the Bills.
	The case for the Bills is overwhelming. This is, as my noble friend Lady Gould said, a straight health and safety issue. No one should have to work in an environment that jeopardises their health and most certainly not as a result of an entirely non-essential activity carried out by others purely for their own personal satisfaction or enjoyment or to meet the needs of their own addiction. The number of people who die each year as a result of exposure to second-hand smoke in their place of work is well in excess of the number of people who are killed by workplace accidents. The argument that people do not have to work in smoke-filled environments is an argument that could be used against all existing health and safety measures on the basis that if there is any danger in a workplace, you do not have to work there.
	In Liverpool alone, around 100 people die each year from cancer or heart disease, not because they smoke, but because of exposure to second-hand smoke from other people. There is a cost to the National Health Service for treatment, there is an economic cost to employers from absence at work and there is a social cost to families that arises from the completely avoidable loss of a loved one, who may also be a breadwinner, a parent or both.
	It is a heartless argument that states that others should be free to smoke in what is someone else's workplace when the evidence clearly shows that the exercise of that freedom by the former could potentially be akin to signing a delayed illness or even death warrant for the latter. It is not personal freedom of choice that is being protected, but personal irresponsibility, callousness and indifference to others that is being promoted.
	The trade union movement supports these Bills precisely because they address an important health and safety issue and seek to protect people at work. Individual unions and the Trades Union Congress are calling on the Government to close the loophole in their smoking ban proposals that would permit certain pubs and bars to allow smoking. I hope that my noble friend will say some helpful words on this point when she responds.
	Reference has already been made to the pending ban on smoking in Scotland, the decision of the National Assembly for Wales to end smoking in public places and the introduction of a smoke-free law in Ireland in March last year. That law has proved to be a major health success, has overwhelming public support and is widely observed. Independent research conducted in March this year on behalf of the Irish trade union, Mandate, showed that 94 per cent of bar workers in Ireland had experienced little or no difficulty in implementing the smoke-free workplace law in the first year of operation. The research also showed that 87 per cent of bar workers supported the law, a similar percentage felt that the law had already had a positive impact on their health and 90 per cent felt that in the long-term it would have a positive impact on their health.
	I hope that both these Bills have a smooth passage. We have a responsibility to provide people at work with as safe a working environment as we can. That is what these Bills do and they deserve the support of your Lordships' House.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I commence by referring briefly to the very good and distinguished maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stratford. I do not understand the suggestion, in his own words, that he is a somewhat robust and possibly ill-mannered person. I do not recognise that at all, but I do recognise that he has the privilege of being, like myself, born in the great city of Belfast. I look forward to his contributions to this House. No doubt they will bring much honour and credit to his native city.
	It gives me great pleasure to support these Bills and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, on bringing them forward. My colleagues in the Ulster Unionist Party and I support a ban on smoking in all public places in Northern Ireland. I welcome the Bills for Liverpool and London in the hope that similar legislation will be introduced across the United Kingdom in the very near future.
	Ours is certainly not an isolated view. When the Northern Ireland Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety recently carried out consultation on a smoking ban, an overwhelming 91 per cent—yes, 91 per cent—of over 70,000 respondents supported Option C: a total ban on smoking in all enclosed public places and workplaces. That is up considerably from the already impressive two-thirds of people who responded to a MORI poll last year in favour of an outright ban. Public opinion is swinging dramatically in favour of such a ban. The Government must pay attention.
	Despite such a mandate, however, the Northern Ireland Office Health Minister, Mr Shaun Woodward, announced last month that, instead of grabbing the bull by the horns in the knowledge that he had the backing of the public to carry it off, he would actually delay making a decision on whether to introduce a blanket ban in Northern Ireland until the autumn. Apparently, he needs another couple of months to make up his mind. I do not understand why he cannot press ahead with the ban when such a large majority of people in Northern Ireland already support it.
	The British Medical Association in Northern Ireland published a report earlier this year called Behind the Smokescreen: the myths and the facts. It exposed the myths surrounding the arguments in the smoking ban debate.
	The Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade in Northern Ireland argues that a ban on smoking in pubs would lead to an increase in uncontrolled smoking and drinking at home. No such evidence has been found following the ban in the Republic of Ireland. Indeed, the smoking ban in the republic has actually encouraged more people to give up smoking altogether.
	The tobacco industry has said that there is no risk to health from exposure to second-hand smoke. Again, the BMA has exploded that myth. The report points to an independent review of all available evidence on second-hand smoke and cancer, published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in May of last year, which concluded that exposure to other people's smoke increases the risk of lung cancer in non-smokers by 20–30 per cent.
	I support these Bills and pay tribute to the work of ASH and other charities and the agencies behind the drive to ban smoking in public places. I hope that Liverpool and London will be an example to us all. I urge the Government to pay careful attention to this debate and to the wishes of the public. I particularly call on the Northern Ireland Health Minister, Mr Woodward, to introduce immediately what 91 per cent of the population want—a total ban on smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces in Northern Ireland.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the promoters of these two Bills, and the noble Lord, Lord Stratford, who, I am sure, will quickly learn how, with great subtlety, it is possible to be extremely impolite in this Chamber—the infrequency makes it all the more telling. I declare an interest as joint president of the Association of London Government; that is, the association of the London boroughs.
	Noble Lords who are veterans of these debates will know better than I do whether any new points have been made today, apart from the geographical ones. As a novice to the debate, I confess that I arrived with my mind made up: to support, personally and on behalf of these Benches, the two Bills. It is Liberal Democrat policy to support such measures. Our manifesto in the recent election dealt with a ban on smoking in all enclosed public places.
	I am, and have always been, a non-smoker, although there have been many times of tension when I wished I did smoke. There have been many more times when I have realised that non-smokers have one great disadvantage: they miss out on a whole sub-culture of office life. I watch the gaggles of smokers clustered outside City Hall and realise that I am probably missing out on quite a lot of plotting and certainly a lot of good gossip.
	I knew that we would hear about the rights and liberties of the individual, but I do not find any great dilemma in this regard. Years ago there were similar debates on seat belts, but in this issue one does not even get to the level of asking whether one can be permitted to harm oneself, given the cost to the public purse of treatment. This is about harming other people. Society is justified in applying a restriction to the individual—the restriction is limited to other people's workplaces, which may also happen to be one's own—given that the individual's actions harm other people. Having listened to noble Lords' contributions and read about the subject, I know that those actions cause significant harm to others. The need to safeguard the health of workers trumps "the right" to smoke.
	I was struck by the relatively new term—new to me, at any rate—"second-hand smoke". It is much more vivid than "passive smoking", which suggests an air of neutrality and calmness. "Second-hand smoke" is a more helpful term.
	We have heard medical evidence today, although I appreciate that not everyone accepts that it is evidence. I am no expert but I have noted that none of those in this House with medical expertise has opposed the Bills.
	Although I have no medical or technical expertise, I have a little personal experience. When the firm in which I was then a partner moved premises, some years ago, into a brand-new building, we created a smoking room. The bright white walls swiftly changed to the most extraordinarily nasty colour. Things have moved on since, and employers do not provide smoking rooms because of the inherent dangers. We are now told that a smoking area in a restaurant is not effective; it means only about a 50 per cent reduction in the risk. Most people would expect a much greater reduction in risk as a result of being able to eat in a separate part of the same enclosed space. Perhaps that false expectation is a danger in itself. I had not realised until I read the briefing that ventilation would have to be almost at gale force to be effective.
	Some in the hospitality industry seem to miss the point that, in any event, the Bills are about protecting employees. It is no answer to say, "Go and get a job elsewhere". Why should they? Secondly, can they? Bar jobs may be all that is available to, say, a student paying his way through study or training. Jobs in the hospitality industry are often low paid and may be difficult to find. There is not a lot of choice. Those in the lowest socio-economic groups are at the highest risk of exposure.
	I mentioned the geographical issues. I am concerned about the disparities. There are, I suspect, very many more pubs in Kensington and Chelsea which sell food than there are in Barking and Dagenham. The Government's White Paper proposals, on which they are now consulting, go less far than the Bills—and I congratulate Liverpool and the London boroughs. They have not gone further because it would be easier to enforce their proposals, although I suspect that that might be a by-product of their logic.
	My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby made a point about local authority autonomy. One point with which I profoundly disagree in these Bills is the Secretary of State having reserved powers to intervene on the level of fixed penalty and ring-fencing. But that is the world in which we live. It may have been that the advice given was: "This is what the Government want, so do it so as not to make a fuss".
	I was interested in and take the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, but perhaps we have several stages to Bills so that that sort of issue can be hammered out. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, who seems not to have rejoined us, talked about the consultation with council tax payers. We have heard about consultation in Liverpool. In London, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, has explained, these are adoptive Bills. Any local authority which intended to go ahead with them without consulting would be rather daft. The noble Lord also painted a picture of the humble smoker up against the big guns of QCs. I have to say that that is not a picture I recognise at all against a background of the very substantial tobacco companies.
	These issues are often best expressed by members of the public rather than, perhaps necessarily, in rather dry reports. A couple of days ago, I received an e-mail from a member of the public—someone whom I do not know—who wrote:
	"I am writing to register my support for legislation to ban smoking in public places. I am sick of going out and being forced to breathe in someone else's smoke. Plus it could kill me. Smokers are free to do whatever they want to themselves. They are not free to do whatever they want to me".
	Normally at this stage on Bills that these Benches support, I would say that I wish them an easy passage. I doubt that the passage of these Bills will be very smooth or very quick. Most of all, I hope that they will be unnecessary because government legislation, as extensive as I would like to see it, will overtake them.

Earl Howe: My Lords, it has been an interesting and unusual debate, bearing in mind that, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, it is not often that the Second Reading of a private Bill excites the attention of so many speakers or, indeed, generates a maiden speech of the wit and quality of the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Stratford.
	When a private Bill is presented to the House, it is customary, although not by any means automatic, to allow it to proceed quietly to a Select Committee, where it is considered in depth and objections to it can be aired. It is not for me as spokesman for the Official Opposition to suggest any other course of action for these two Bills. In that context, we would do well to heed the words of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. However, I hope that I may be allowed to adopt something of a questioning approach. I would hope that the questions that I have will be ones that a Select Committee will wish in due course to take up.
	It seems to me that we are dealing with two debates. The first debate is about the merits or otherwise of introducing a ban on smoking in public places. The second debate, once we have decided that there should be a restriction in some form, as the sponsors have, is about what is the best and most appropriate way of achieving the desired aim.
	Luckily—I say this with some deference and a measure of apology—notwithstanding the views of my noble friends Lord Geddes and Lord Naseby, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, and others, the first of those issues carries with it broad consensus across the parties. I listened with close attention to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, whom we all respect greatly as someone who has championed this cause for many years now, and my respect and regard for the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, is exactly the same.
	The case that they have put about the health hazards of passive smoking seems very powerful. The evidence that has emerged, especially over the past five to six years, about morbidity and mortality stemming directly from passive smoking has been endorsed in many countries at the highest level of the medical profession. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, referred to some of the evidence, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and most notably, the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg. Speaking for myself, I find it compelling. Those who find it compelling must necessarily believe that action of some sort needs to be taken.
	I speak for a party that believes that we should find workable ways of delivering smoke-free environments for all adults who want them and that we should make it our business to end smoking in areas to which children have access. The operative word there is "workable" because the current government proposals seem to be an unsatisfactory sort of fudge, fraught with problems. No doubt, that is a matter that the evidence-taking process will tease out.
	It is right to mention that the scientific case is not without its critics. We heard some of those criticisms this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, and my noble friend Lord Liverpool, for example, argued forcefully that the presentation of the statistics on the risks associated with environmental tobacco smoke was flawed. They pointed to what they saw as—I paraphrase—tendentiousness, unfounded assumptions and mathematical sleight of hand that together served to sully the science. I mention that only because I think that it has to be mentioned.
	I am extremely doubtful about the validity of those criticisms because of the extent and nature of the advocacy weighed against them, but they need to be faced squarely and dealt with. I hope that the Select Committee will do that. I agree with the critics to this extent: surely we cannot force businesses to change their practices or even urge on them the merits of doing so voluntarily, without completely sound epidemiology supporting the underlying policy.
	I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, will not doubt my sympathy for the motivation underlying the Bills or in broad terms their tenor. The more troubling questions that I have about them are to do not with the science or the content but with the legislative approach. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, we are in the middle of a public consultation about the regulation of smoking at work and in other public places. The Government initiated that consultation following their White Paper of last November and the undertaking given in the gracious Speech following the election. It is a major issue of public health. It affects all of us and, rightly, the Government have taken the lead in promulgating a series of questions to which industry, the medical profession and the public will be able to submit their answers.
	We may not agree with the formula proposed by the Government for achieving the objectives that they have set, but that is not the central issue this evening. In the context of these Bills, the central issue is whether we think it appropriate that, on a major issue of public health, two areas of the country should be able to declare UDI by ignoring the national consultation and bypassing whatever proposals emerge from it.
	Against those considerations, I confess to being uneasy about whether the two measures are an appropriate use of the private Bill mechanism. The logical consequence of that approach is that we may eventually have a patchwork quilt of private legislation throughout the country, each statute subtly different from the next, to which businesses, the public and the police will somehow have to adapt. Of course, in some areas we may well find ourselves with no legislation on the matter at all.
	For many sorts of policy issue, that kind of regional variation does not matter in the slightest. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, expressed her support for local pilots and initiatives. In many areas of policy making I would agree with her 100 per cent, but in public health, where policy should be driven by the underlying science and not just by what people want, I suggest that it does matter.
	There is an additional dimension to this, which is that, taking the London Bill as an example, it would be open to individual London boroughs to opt out of the legislation altogether. Westminster City Council, despite having taken the lead in promoting the Bill, has announced that it does not intend to implement it if it becomes law. So, as we heard today, have three other local authorities.
	That is a strange situation in itself. My purpose in drawing attention to it is not to embarrass anyone but rather to make the point that it is an inherently unsatisfactory state of affairs when we are dealing with people's health. Either there is a public health case for doing the kind of thing proposed in the Bill or there is not. If Parliament agrees that there is, it seems inappropriate for Parliament in the same breath to say that individual areas are free to opt out of applying the law.
	It is difficult to think of a precisely comparable issue where the exercise of private rights affects the wider interests of innocent members of the public. One could perhaps cite the drink-driving laws. Having agreed that there was an empirical public interest case for legislating on a maximum blood-alcohol level in drivers, Parliament did not then say that certain London boroughs should be able to opt out of the provisions if they did not like them; nor did it say that different areas of the country could set their own maximum blood-alcohol levels by legislating privately. The public interest case was made and, rightly, then applied across the board.
	Like my noble friend Lord Naseby, I am not clear that the consultation undertaken by Liverpool City Council and by the London boroughs has been as thorough as it surely needs to be if substantial costs are to be imposed on businesses in the manner proposed. For example, what basis is there in local opinion gathering, either in London or in Liverpool, for the decision to disallow smoking in the workplace in specially designated rooms? What was the basis for the decision to proscribe the possibility of segregated smoking areas in pubs and bars?
	The Bills appear to prohibit smoking on covered station platforms and covered street cafes. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale mentioned company cars, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, spoke powerfully about theatres and rehearsal rooms, which would be caught by both Bills. Is that really what most people want? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, recognise that there is a balance to be struck between private rights and the public interest, but are they really satisfied—hand on heart—that the Bills achieve that balance?
	As I said at the start, it is not, I believe, appropriate for the House to impede the passage of the Bills at Second Reading, but I am impressed by the point made by several noble Lords that, with a government Bill coming down the tracks, a considerable number of petitioners against these Bills will be put to a great deal of expense to little ultimate purpose—whatever the outcome of their petitions—if the Bills are in due course to be overridden by nationwide legislation.
	Perhaps the sponsors of the Bills are prepared to live with that, if it means being able to activate legislation more quickly than the Government intend to do. But I would suggest that that in itself opens up all kinds of questions about what is a reasonable lead-up time for businesses that have to comply with the law when it comes into force. I should particularly welcome the comments of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on that point when they come to reply.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, time is short. There will be many opportunities in the future for the Government to answer questions when we bring forward new legislation. I shall therefore confine my contribution mainly to setting out the Government's policy. It would of course not be appropriate for me to answer questions relating to the Bills themselves.
	I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Faulkner and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, for bringing forward these Bills. They both have a fine record in working and campaigning for a smoke-free environment, both inside and outside Parliament. I must also congratulate my noble friend Lord Stratford on his polite and excellent speech. I hope that he is not too exhausted.
	I have listened carefully to the views expressed from all sides of the Chamber. We have heard some extremely interesting and constructive contributions, with compelling and alarming facts and figures. Naturally, we will take on board what has been said today in drawing up the detailed legislation to implement the Government's own proposals as set out in the White Paper Choosing Health. I particularly note the points made about inequality.
	It is clear that while there are differences in approach and in scope, there is much common ground between the objectives of these Bills and the Government's proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked whether the Bills, if they become law, will override the Government's Act. It is too early in the process to say anything about that. As we are in the middle of consultation on the detail of the Government's Bill, it is difficult to be confident about how the two pieces of legislation might fit together.
	The Government's objective is clear. We have set out proposals for legislation to shift the balance significantly in favour of smoke-free environments. The health improvement and protection Bill, announced in the Queen's Speech, will be introduced in the autumn and will include specific provisions for smoke-free, enclosed public places and workplaces. That Bill will cover all of England and Wales. Separate legislation, the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill, has already made its way through the Scottish Parliament and is due to be implemented in spring 2006.
	Northern Ireland Ministers are currently considering measures following their own consultation exercise, but as the noble Lord, Lord Laird, clearly stated, public opinion in Northern Ireland has swung swiftly in favour of an Ireland-style ban.
	For England, in broad terms, the proposals on which we are consulting further are that all enclosed public places and workplaces, other than licensed premises, will be smoke free. All pubs, bars and other licensed premises preparing and serving food will be entirely smoke free and in membership clubs the members will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke free. Smoking in the bar area will be prohibited. In England, the intention is that smoke-free places will be introduced through a staged process over the next four years.
	As a Welsh person, I was working in Cardiff when people celebrated the Smoking in Public Places (Wales) Bill, brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and which was supported by this House. I am delighted that she shares my delight that, under the terms of this new Bill, the National Assembly for Wales will be able to make its own provisions. The Welsh Assembly Government have recently announced their intention to accept the proposals of the ad hoc committee on smoking in public places. On 5 July, I understand that the Minister, Brian Gibbons, said in a statement that he envisaged a ban on smoking in public places coming into force in two or three years.
	Moving back to the situation in England, naturally, we are aware that the proposals in the White Paper do not go as far as some noble Lords would wish. However, we are also aware that, in the words of Deborah Arnott, the director of ASH, the White Paper is a big step forward for public health. If passed into law, it will save thousands of lives every year, as vulnerable people are no longer exposed to dangerous, second-hand smoke at work and as thousands of smokers are encouraged to cut down or quit altogether.
	The Department of Health, jointly with the Wales Office, is currently consulting on the detailed proposals for legislation on the smoke-free elements of the health improvement and protection Bill. That consultation runs until 5 September. We have already received hundreds of responses in the first few weeks. The contributions to today's debate will, of course, help to inform the Government as they draw up their detailed proposals.
	The consultation includes particular consideration of the special arrangements that will be needed for places such as hospices, prisons, and long-stay residential homes. We recognise that where a place is someone's home, but also on occasions someone else's workplace, careful thought will need to be given to the practical implications of any measures to protect people from the smoke of others. This is an area where the Liverpool and London Bills appear to be inconsistent with White Paper proposals. The Government will continue to listen to the views put forward in the current consultation on these key areas of implementation.
	While people are often sceptical about consultative exercises, I must assure noble Lords that this consultation is a real opportunity to influence government policy. We shall also take account of the experiences of other countries that have introduced smoke-free enclosed public places and workplaces, sometimes over many more years than the timetable that we envisage.
	An important point to keep in mind is that whatever the Government's view of the Bills that we are discussing this evening, a number of petitions against the private Bills have been deposited by individuals and by organisations that are opposed and, therefore, as has been outlined, the petitions will need to be considered in accordance with the usual procedures of the House.
	Of course, the principal difference between the proposals in the private Bills and those in the White Paper is the simple fact that the Government are working on proposals for the whole country and not just for some cities or local authorities. The Government's proposals have grown out of a long and extensive series of public consultations on a national level. We have taken full account of the views of the public across the country and will continue to do so with the further consultation process. After that, we will come forward with detailed legislation to tackle smoking in public places.
	While there is much in common between our proposals and those contained in the Bills, there are also clear differences. The Government will, of course, not oppose the Liverpool and London Bills, but we point to the proposals for the whole country, which we believe will achieve the objective of significantly shifting the norm to achieve smoke-free enclosed public places and workplaces within the next four years.
	In considering future legislation, it should not be forgotten that much has already been achieved. Progress has been made on creating smoke-free environments, and we want this to continue. More than half the population already work in entirely smoke-free workplaces, and there has been a significant shift in recent years in the response to rising public awareness of the damage to health from second-hand smoke.
	Finally, I want to make it clear—I agree with the comments of many noble Lords on this matter—that the Government regard second-hand smoke as a serious public health issue. We recognised this in the country's first ever White Paper on tobacco, Smoking Kills, which we published in 1998. As we said in the very first chapter of that document:
	"Passive smoking—breathing in other people's tobacco smoke—also kills".
	We continue to recognise this.
	Alongside the White Paper Choosing Health, we published the latest report on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke by our independent scientific committee on tobacco and health which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. That spelt out the increased risk of cancer and heart disease.
	What has changed since Smoking Kills is the public's significantly increased demand for smoke-free public places and workplaces, and our increased determination to tackle second-hand smoke. The smoke-free elements of the health improvement and protection Bill on which we are consulting will be a major step forward in the level of protection offered to the population in public places and workplaces. Once in place, the vast majority of enclosed public places and workplaces across the country will be completely smoke-free.
	This policy represents a major step forward in the protection of the public from second-hand smoke. It will mean that more than 99 per cent of people will work in entirely smoke-free environments.
	In conclusion, the private Bills before us relate only to parts of England rather than the whole country. In some measures, they are not consistent with the proposals set out in the Choosing Health White Paper. The Government have put forward a more extensive package of measures with a published timetable progressively to make almost all public places and workplaces across the country smoke-free.
	With this approach, we will save thousands of lives, reducing deaths from cancer, heart disease and all the other diseases that smoking causes, as well as all the pain and suffering caused by these illnesses to the individuals concerned and their loved ones.
	This evening's debate will certainly inform the Government as we draw up the detailed legislation of the health improvement and protection Bill. I, too, read the moving article by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and, like many noble Lords I am sure, I have nursed relatives as they have died from lung cancer, having given up smoking too late in life because doing so was so difficult in a smoke-filled atmosphere.
	I celebrate the fact that with the new legislation, we will not only reduce the harmful effects of second-hand smoke across the country but also provide smokers who are trying to quit with an environment in which it is easier to do so.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I congratulate your Lordships on once again managing to reflect British public opinion so well in this Chamber. Support among the British people for completely smoke-free enclosed public places and workplaces is running at between two and three to one. That is almost exactly the proportion of Peers who have spoken in favour of the two Bills tonight, and I am sure that if all Members of the House voted on the issue, that proportion would be maintained.
	I am most grateful to everyone who has spoken in the debate, especially to those of your Lordships who have brought such a deeply impressive understanding of the medical and social issues involved in smoking and health. It would be invidious of me to single out any particular speaker. I do not think I have come across such a powerful array of speakers from a medical background as we have heard tonight. But I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stratford, on his brilliant maiden speech. We look forward to hearing him on this and many other issues many times in the future.
	I express my appreciation also to the Minister for her thoughtful and helpful speech. The change in the Government's approach during recent months is remarkable, and that was reflected in what she had to say today. I know how strongly she supports a comprehensive approach to smoke-free workplaces. I hope that she will take very seriously the points that have been made by speakers who have backed these two Bills tonight on the extra number of lives that will be saved if a comprehensive approach, rather than the piecemeal approach which was contained in the White Paper published before the general election, is adopted.
	I thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her contribution from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Her support for the two Bills is much appreciated. I know that the heart of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is very much in the right place. He has a job to do with some of his noble friends. Virtually every opponent of these measures tonight came from the Benches behind him. He has some persuading to do on the dangers of passive smoking and why a radical policy needs to be adopted.
	I should deal briefly with some of the points that were made by opponents of the Bills. On the issue whether passive smoking kills, I think only one speaker denied the facts on that: the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, who sadly has had to leave us. I am sure that he will want to read very carefully the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Chan, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friends Lord Turnberg and Lord Rea on that subject, and indeed others. He might also like to read the latest report of the Chief Medical Officer that was published yesterday.
	Attempts by the tobacco lobby to deny that passive smoking kills are similar to their earlier attempts to deny that smoking itself is dangerous or that nicotine is addictive. They tell untruths on these matters, and they are not telling the truth on passive smoking.
	As many speakers in this debate have demonstrated, the claims that smoking bans are bad for business are also untrue, based on experience elsewhere. My noble friend Lord Haskel dealt very effectively with that point, and my noble friend Lord Rosser reminded us how strongly trade union support for comprehensive smoke-free policies is running.
	Questions were asked about the scale of the consultation in Liverpool. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, raised that matter early in the debate. He will find that my noble supporter, the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, answered the points on consultation. The promoters of the Bills will write to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, if he wishes, to give him more details of how extensive the consultation was.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, not only does he wish it, but he looks forward to receiving them.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, that is good to know. The question whether this is an appropriate subject for local government legislation was raised by one or two speakers, and it was answered to great effect by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, by my noble friend Lord Rosser and indeed by other speakers. I ask noble Lords to look at the history of local authority legislation, particularly in the health field. So much of what was passed in the 19th century which made a difference to the health of our people in our cities originated in local government Bills. The approach of Liverpool and London with these Bills is totally in accord with that spirit.
	Noble Lords opposite made some fun of the attitude of Westminster City Council towards the London Bill. It is not true to say that it has withdrawn its support. It remains the lead local authority in promoting it. It has twice voted to promote the legislation. But it is an adoptive Bill in London, and Westminster City Council is perfectly free not to bring it into effect if it chooses to do so. But the voters in the City of Westminster are similarly free to change that council if they feel that it is not representing them. That is called representative democracy and there really is nothing more to it than that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, had some fun about border crossings, and how people would know where the ban applied when they entered London boroughs or the city of Liverpool. We heard from the Minister that we shall shortly be crossing the Border into Scotland, where the ban applies. We shall be crossing the border into Wales—and, at present, although perhaps not for much longer, when you cross the border from Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic you are moving from a smoking zone to a no-smoking zone.
	There were also questions about places of work. In the case of vessels on the Mersey, if they are within the territorial waters of the city of Liverpool, which go half way out across the Mersey, they are covered by the Bill. Indeed, if lorries are operating in Liverpool, they are covered too.
	To talk about "smoke police", as the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, did, is just nonsense. If you look at the Irish experience you can see that there is almost universal compliance. The measures there are implemented by people themselves, who make sure that they are implemented—because the provision is popular and is what people want.
	This has been an excellent debate and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in it. On the liberal principle and the issue of freedom, I quote John Stuart Mill. In his Essay on Liberty he said:
	"Acts of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavourable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people".
	On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Select Committee.

London Local Authorities (Prohibition of Smoking in Places of Work) Bill [HL]

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	I thank all noble Lords for a fascinating debate. It is my belief that all views should be aired thoroughly. It needs to be a robust debate, so I welcome the views of those who have opposed the Bills as well as those who have supported them. I particularly wanted to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Stratford, on his maiden speech. I have much admired his tenacity of purpose, and I am just glad that he is on my side rather than on the other side with regard to the London Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Howarth of Breckland.)
	On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Select Committee.

Registration of Fish Buyers and Sellers and Designation of Fish Auction Sites Regulations 2005

Baroness Byford: rose to move to resolve, That this House regrets that Her Majesty's Government have not considered that the Registration of Fish Buyers and Sellers and Designation of Fish Auction Sites Regulations 2005 inappropriately implement European legislation (SI 2005/1605) [5th Report from Merits Committee.]

Baroness Byford: My Lords, the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee has stated that:
	"These Regulations are drawn to the special attention of the House on the grounds that they give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House, and that they may inappropriately implement European legislation".
	I am particularly grateful to the Minister and to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who so kindly waited to be able to take this piece of business through tonight. In all fairness, this business should have come before the private Bills that have just had their Second Reading, but I am doubly grateful that they have been willing to hang on.
	The committee has produced a report which, at two full pages with a one and a half page index, is longer than normal and contains some concerns. The regulations are intended to implement fully the EU regulations of 1993 and the extensions of 2002. Those provisions cover the registration of those involved in the sale or purchase of first sale fish and the designation of auction sites. As drafted, the regulations allow a derogation for direct sales of less than 25 kilograms of first sale fish, provided that it is intended for personal consumption. In effect, the regulations extend to vessels of less than 10 metres the requirements to provide sales notes in respect of all sales over 25 kilograms and non-personal sales under that limit.
	The sales notes are to be supplied to the relevant authority within 48 hours of the sale taking place. The explanatory information in the appendix states that the time limit and the contents of the sales notes are laid down by the EU. Will the Minister confirm that the EU demands that sales notes are to be submitted within 48 hours of the completion of the sale? The wording of the statutory instrument suggests that the true requirement is 28 days. I refer the Minister to Section 5(5)(b). I wonder whether we are not over bureaucratically interpreting the system.
	Will the Minister also confirm that sales notes relating to customers who purchase first sale fish daily and are invoiced weekly or monthly will be considered to cover the same period? I am thinking of seaside hotels and bed-and-breakfasts supplied to a standing order from harbour stalls run by local fishermen.
	The Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee report also details the effect of these new demands. In 2004 there were about 73,000 recorded landings of fish from small boats. These landings may have been grouped on some occasions; on others they may have gone to several outlets. Calculating the total of sales notes generated is largely guesswork but is thought to number about 100,000 at a cost of at least £400,000.
	I find that figure a little low and would like to ask the Minister whether his department has revisited those costs since the RIA was done and, if so, whether they hold to the original published figures because the committee refers to significant costs in its report.
	I would also like to ask the Minister whether the Government have made any attempt to obtain an exemption from these requirements on the grounds, as stated by the committee, that,
	"the obligation creates a disproportionate burden compared to the economic importance of the activity".
	The committee also questions what the fisheries department will do with 100,000 or more sales notes every year. Will that be a reason further to increase the number of civil servants? Will the notes be transposed to a computer record and, if so, why is there no requirement for them to be typed, or is that yet another job to be created?
	I should like to ask how the regulations will impinge on the fisherman who sells his catch from a stall in or near the harbour? Are these regulations designed to force him out of business, particularly as they operate above 25 kilograms when the consultation related originally to 50 kilograms and to all non-personal purchases? What will happen about one-off sales, for example, for a charity function or family celebration that needs more than 25 kilograms?
	I hope that the noble Lord will respond to two further questions. Christopher Booker's column in the Sunday Telegraph last week referred to a report—I believe that a noble Lord may be laughing slightly about that but it is a serious issue on which I seek clarification—in the Western Morning News. Mr Booker states:
	"The paper had plucked from a report by Mr Bradshaw a proposal that small inshore fishermen should pay £1,000-a-year for a licence, as a contribution to the ever-growing cost of regulating their activities".
	If that is true, it is, indeed, worrying. Presumably, that would be over and above the demands already being made through the statutory instrument. The article claims that Mr Bradshaw's ministry maintained that,
	"It is currently Defra's policy to charge for regulatory services; that it would therefore be appropriate to apply this to the inshore fishermen and that this could raise around £2.5 million a year".
	I would be grateful for the comments of the Minister on that.
	Finally, because it is so topical and relates again to statutory instruments, I refer the Minister to the recent publication by the European Union Committee, which considered the European fisheries legislation. In the report of 11 July—it is very current—the committee talks about improving the scrutiny of EU fisheries policy. Item 9 in the report says:
	"Currently therefore, there is a two week window in which both the Governmental and Parliamentary scrutiny can take place between the publication of formal Commission proposals and the Council meeting".
	I shall not go on to quote the next part, but it is there to be read. It goes on in recommendation 10:
	"The Committee accepts that the United Kingdom Government are placed in a difficult situation regarding fisheries scrutiny. However, it would be unacceptable for the current situation to continue".
	I then jump to recommendation 14, which states:
	"We therefore urge the Government to take forward the improvement of the decision-making process for fisheries management as a matter of urgency under their Presidency".
	I would be grateful if the Minister would touch on both those points. I realise that they are slightly wider than the original statutory instrument, but they obviously have a direct bearing on the cost to our inshore fishermen.
	Moved to resolve, That this House regrets that Her Majesty's Government have not considered that the Registration of Fish Buyers and Sellers and Designation of Fish Auction Sites Regulations 2005 inappropriately implement European legislation (S.I. 2005/1605). [5th Report from Merits Committee.]—(Baroness Byford.)

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for bringing this to the attention of the House and for giving us the opportunity to debate the comments of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee on it. I was really struck by the strength of its language. It is not a committee that is known for using strong language when it comes to passing comments. That the committee used such language and went on to explain the queries about the regulation in such detail suggests that it is very concerned.
	I believe that the committee is concerned that this seems to be a bureaucrat's answer to what is undoubtedly a problem. Underpinning the problem that the regulation was trying to address is the issue of tackling the trade in black fish and getting some idea of what is being landed where and whether that tallies with the selling notes. I referred to the excellent report, Net Benefits, produced by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit last year, which talked about a light-touch data collection approach to the under-10 metre fleet and emphasised that the inshore fisheries fleet should not be seen as a vehicle for trying to implement a marine management system. Indeed, that is exactly what the regulation as it has been interpreted for implementation in the UK is trying to do.
	Is the Minister satisfied with the public consultation that has taken place? Although I note in the memorandum that came round with it that some 50 responses have been received, I say to him that, for example, the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee has just received itand will discuss it at next Friday's meeting. Of course, that response has not been received, but I can imagine some of the things that they might say when they came to discuss it. Rick Stein's restaurant in Padstow is generally regarded to have underpinned a lot of the regeneration of Padstow. There is also Damien Hirst's restaurant in Ilfracombe. No doubt, the Minister will say when he comes to reply that the restaurants would have to do the paperwork anyway, so it will not lay an extra burden on them. However, they have not had an opportunity to comment because, as I said, the comments from Devon simply are not in.
	There are no obvious environmental benefits to be gained by implementing the regulation in this way; but there are possible economic disbenefits because it adds another layer of bureaucracy—perhaps not for restaurants of that scale but certainly for smaller buyers. Perhaps the Minister will remind the House exactly what will be the penalty if they do not fulfil the regulations. That undermines much of the effort of those involved in regeneration through fresh local food tying in with tourism in areas such as Devon and Cornwall, which is an objective 1 area in great need of such regeneration.
	Why does the Minister think that such a bureaucratic approach will tackle what is fundamentally an environmental problem? Once again, I say how grateful I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. In this instance, it was a pleasure, rather than a burden, for me to stay on to debate it, because I was so pleased for the opportunity to speak about it.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Baronesses who have contributed to this short debate. It has highlighted some important points, which I shall do my best to answer.
	First, it is important for the House to understand the background to the introduction of this statutory instrument. European Council Regulation 2847/93—the control regulation—sets out the detailed rules on the first sale of fish, including the provision of sales notes. The control regulation applies directly in the UK, and the regulations that we are considering make provision for its enforcement and administration.
	The House has great respect for the Merits Committee; I do also. Of course, we are concerned when it expresses concern about the impact of any measure. Here, it is concerned about the impact that the measure will have upon buyers of direct sale fish from smaller fishing vessels. The committee also notes that EU legislation envisages that exemptions from compliance obligations may be considered if those obligations create a disproportionate burden compared to the economic importance of the activity. That is certainly true, but such exemptions cannot be adopted at national level; they have to be agreed by the Community.
	It is difficult to see how that could be achieved in this case, as many other member states have routinely required sales notes in respect of landings from vessels of under 10 metres for a number of years. It would also be difficult to justify in terms of stock conservation, as it would seriously weaken the controls —not referred to in the previous two speeches—that are necessary to ensure the effective conservation of fish stocks. It has been said that under 10-metre vessels account only for 5 per cent of catches of quota stocks. That is true, but I remind the House that there are notable exceptions. They account, for instance, for over a quarter of the catch of Channel cod, a stock currently subject to stock recovery measures.
	As has been noted, the regulations, in line with the control regulation, provide an exemption from compliance for purchases of less than 25 kilogrammes direct from fishing vessels by individuals for personal consumption. The noble Baroness asked why that limit was not 50 kilogrammes. The proposal for a 50 kilogramme limit was reduced to 25 kilogrammes at the request of the fishing industry. Therefore, the practice of individuals wanting to buy fish directly from vessels is in no way altered, providing that it is not for onward commercial sale.
	I remind the House that, in November 2003, the UK received a letter starting infraction proceedings against it for shortcomings in fisheries control arrangements. The letter specifically refers to the need to ensure that independent information regarding fish landings is available from sales notes. The UK's response refers to the new arrangements to be introduced under the regulations which we are now considering. During recent visits to the UK, Commission inspectors asked about progress in the area, noted that the requirements were not yet in place, and were assured that that was imminent. We are aware that Commission officials are currently considering the legal arguments for taking the proceedings forward to the next stage.
	Noble Lords will no doubt be aware that last week France was fined a lump sum of €20 million for failing to comply with its obligations under the common fisheries policy, with a periodic penalty of almost €58 million for each subsequent six-month period over which the failure continues. Although the process of infraction against the UK has some way to go before it reaches the stage of the French case, the recent fines illustrate the levels of potential penalties for non-compliance.
	If it ended there, that might be one thing. However, the arguments in favour of this statutory instrument do not simply relate to legalistic questions and the risk of infraction proceedings, however serious, against this country. The requirements will bring real practical benefits in relation to the control of illegal landings of fish. As the House knows, such "black fish" landings threaten the long-term future of the fishing industry and are detrimental to those who operate within the law. As the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit report on a sustainable and profitable fishing industry said:
	"The current levels of non-compliance are a problem because they disrupt efforts to recover stocks, undermine trust in the system and corrupt incentives within the industry . . . Fishermen cite the illegal landings by other fishermen as the most important reason for their own illegal actions. Such perceptions and attitudes are deeply corrosive".
	The Strategy Unit goes on to recommend the introduction of a high transparency system where all catches and landings are traced through markets and processors, with enforcement focusing more on forensic accounting. The regulations provide the foundation for such an approach. As the report of our European Union Committee on European Union fisheries legislation—House of Lords Paper 24—concluded,
	"it is vital that mechanisms for compliance with EU regulations are improved".
	The Merits Committee and this debate have raised important points about the regulations, particularly in respect of proportionality as regards the burden placed on buyers purchasing directly from smaller boats. I recognise that that is a new requirement for such purchasers, and we have been aware of the need to minimise its impact. Registration as a buyer is a one-off process for which no charge is made, and some restaurants and pubs may even find advantage in being able to tell their clients that they are registered to buy fish fresh from the boat. As regards the practicalities, there is no reason why fishermen cannot complete the detail of sales notes for their customers, with the customer simply checking and vouching for its accuracy. In the longer term, Defra is working to develop a system which will allow for the electronic submission of sales notes, reducing costs and enabling automatic cross-checking of information from different sources.
	There remains the question of whether landings from boats of under 10 metres are significant enough to justify imposing the same requirements as on larger boats. The fleet of boats of under 10 metres numbers 5,000, and in some respects they are more lightly regulated than other fishing vessels. Because of that, over the past decade there has been a significant increase in the catching capability of those boats, as the Strategy Unit pointed out.
	Let me tell the House briefly what the position was and what it will be. At the moment for boats of over 10 metres, fishermen need to complete log sheets of catches on board and submit landing declarations to the department. For boats of under 10 metres, fishermen have no such duties but some submit sales notes, and fisheries officers carry out sampling of merchants' records to estimate landings for boats of under 10 metres. The new arrangements will provide, first, for independent cross-checks of over 10 metre landing information—that is crucial—secondly, a new duty on buyers purchasing directly from fishermen to provide sales notes and, thirdly, better information about under 10 metre landings.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the submission of sales notes within 28 days. Section 5(5)(b) of the regulations, to which she drew the attention of the House, relates not to sales notes, but to records kept by buyers, which fisheries departments may ask to see.
	She also asked what the department would do with sales notes. They are recorded in fishing databases within two years and we hope to have an automatic cross-checking of information. She asked how the regulations would impinge on fishermen who sold their catches from stalls. The answer is that fishermen selling their own catches on their own stalls to members of the public for personal consumption will not be affected by the regulations.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about public consultation. There were two full rounds of consultation with stakeholders before the regulations were made, including with the sea fisheries committees.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised two other issues. She asked, first, about an article in the Sunday Telegraph, which was followed up in the Western Morning News. There is no plan to slap a £1,000 charge on inshore fishermen or anyone else. Frankly, many misleading reports have been published in the press about that and I welcome the opportunity that she has given me to set the record straight. A report published last year on marine fisheries and environmental enforcement, the Bradley review, suggested a £1,000 charge on inshore fishermen and the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit report, to which I have referred, published last year, recommended charging the industry more generally. In our response, Securing the Benefits, we recognised that arrangements for recovering government costs exist in many areas and, in principle, that that should be the case for fisheries. However, we recognise that there are complex questions to consider, including the impact on competitiveness. For that reason, charging would be considered only alongside the steps that were set out in Securing the Benefits to make the sector more sustainable and profitable. We are not planning to impose, at this stage, a charge of £1,000, or any other sum.
	The noble Baroness also asked me about the European Union Committee report of 11 July. We are, indeed, giving priority during our presidency to improving the decision-making process for fisheries management—for example, in relation to the decisions currently taken, as the noble Baroness knows so well, every December in the Fisheries Council.
	In conclusion, I know that the House shares our concern to ensure that fisheries activities are properly controlled and, particularly, that illegal fishing is prevented, because such activity threatens the long-term future of this industry and is detrimental to those who operate within the law. The regulations will make such illegal practices more difficult and will provide the ability to verify information on landings from other sources. The under 10 metre boats are an important component of our fishing fleet and EU requirements in this area apply to them directly. As I have said, the UK cannot unilaterally exempt those vessels from the new requirements, so I do not believe that the regulations, which are a central plank of our efforts to secure the sustainability and profitability of the fishing industry, inappropriately implement European legislation.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for so carefully going through the queries that we have raised. It would seem churlish of me to challenge him, particularly with regard to the article in the Daily Telegraph. But the issue was taken up, because it was copied from the Ministry website of Mr Bradshaw. Clearly, something is amiss, but it is too late in the night and I do not wish to follow that line. However, I should be grateful if, at some stage, the Minister might check that, because either it was on Mr Bradshaw's website or it was not. That is a question of fact.
	The second issue that the Minister covered was the illegal landing of fish. I share the deep concern expressed by him and other noble Lords about that. How much illegal landing of that sort of fish is done through very small boats of 10 metres and under? I do not expect him to answer me tonight, but I presume that the department makes some estimates of from whence this illegal fish is being landed, whether from the bigger fishing fleets, foreign fishing fleets or small fishing fleets. If the Minister could come back to me with clarification, I would be grateful.
	I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for her kind words and for being willing to be here to raise this important issue. Those who fish from smaller inshore boats have been through difficult times, as I am sure the Minister is aware. It would seem to us unfortunate if extra responsibilities and regulations were placed upon them that would make them even less competitive and less profitable in the future.
	The time is late. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
	House adjourned at fourteen minutes before eleven o'clock.